Technical report on the Quality Assurance of the ... - Umalusi
Technical report on the Quality Assurance of the ... - Umalusi
Technical report on the Quality Assurance of the ... - Umalusi
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong><strong>Quality</strong> <strong>Assurance</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>Examinati<strong>on</strong>s and Assessment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>Nati<strong>on</strong>al Senior Certificate (NSC) 2012
A TECHNICAL REPORT ON THEQUALITY ASSURANCE OF THE 2012NATIONAL SENIOR CERTIFICATEASSESSMENT AND EXAMINATIONPUBLISHED BY:Council for <strong>Quality</strong> <strong>Assurance</strong> inGeneral and Fur<strong>the</strong>r Educati<strong>on</strong> and Training37 General Van Ryneveld Street, Persequor Technopark, PretoriaTeleph<strong>on</strong>e: 27 12 349 1510 • Fax: 27 12 349 1511 • info@umalusi.org.za
COPYRIGHT 2012 UMALUSI COUNCIL FOR QUALITYASSURANCE IN GENERAL AND FURTHER EDUCATIONAND TRAINING. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.Whilst all reas<strong>on</strong>able steps are taken to ensure <strong>the</strong> accuracy andintegrity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> informati<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tained herein, <strong>Umalusi</strong> accepts noliability or resp<strong>on</strong>sibility whatsoever if <strong>the</strong> informati<strong>on</strong> is, forwhatsoever reas<strong>on</strong>, incorrect and <strong>Umalusi</strong> reserves its right toamend any incorrect informati<strong>on</strong>.
C<strong>on</strong>tentsACRONYMSEXECUTIVE SUMMARYvviCHAPTER 1QUESTION PAPER MODERATION11 Introducti<strong>on</strong>2 Scope3 Findings4 Areas <strong>of</strong> Good Practice5 Challenges6 Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s7 C<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>121214151516CHAPTER 2MODERATION AND VERIFICATION OF GRADE 12SCHOOL-BASED ASSESSMENT171 Introducti<strong>on</strong>2 Scope3 Summary <strong>of</strong> Findings4 Areas <strong>of</strong> Good Practice5 Challenges6 Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s7 C<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>17182021222230CHAPTER 3APPROVAL OF FINAL MEMORANDA: MEMORANDUM DISCUSSION MEETINGS311 Introducti<strong>on</strong>2 Scope3 Summary <strong>of</strong> Results4 Areas <strong>of</strong> Good Practice5 Challenges6 Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s8 C<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>31313540404141iii
Acr<strong>on</strong>ymsASsAssessment StandardsCATComputer Applicati<strong>on</strong>s TechnologyDBEDepartment <strong>of</strong> Basic Educati<strong>on</strong>ECEastern CapeEGDEngineering, Graphics and DesignFALFirst Additi<strong>on</strong>al LanguageFSFree StateHLHome LanguageIMInternal ModeratorITInformati<strong>on</strong> TechnologyKZNKwaZulu-NatalLOsLearning OutcomesNCNor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeNCSNati<strong>on</strong>al Curriculum StatementNSCNati<strong>on</strong>al Senior CertificateNWNorth WestP1, P2, P3 Paper 1, Paper 2, Paper 3PATPractical Assessment TaskPEPhysical Educati<strong>on</strong>PI(s)Practical Investigati<strong>on</strong>(s)PDEProvincial Department <strong>of</strong> Basic Educati<strong>on</strong>SAGSubject Assessment GuidelinesSALSec<strong>on</strong>d Additi<strong>on</strong>al LanguageSAGSite-based assessment<strong>Umalusi</strong> Council for <strong>Quality</strong> <strong>Assurance</strong> in General and Fur<strong>the</strong>r Educati<strong>on</strong>and TrainingWCWestern Capev
Executive SummaryThe General and Fur<strong>the</strong>r Educati<strong>on</strong> and Training <strong>Quality</strong> <strong>Assurance</strong> Act (Act No. 58 <strong>of</strong>2001, amended in 2008) mandates <strong>Umalusi</strong> to assure <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> all exit point assessmentpractices for all registered and accredited assessment bodies, including <strong>the</strong> Department<strong>of</strong> Basic Educati<strong>on</strong> (DBE) and its Provincial Departments <strong>of</strong> Basic Educati<strong>on</strong> (PDEs).The annual summative assessment <strong>of</strong> Grade 12 candidates registered for <strong>the</strong> NSCexaminati<strong>on</strong> has come to an end, and <strong>Umalusi</strong> has c<strong>on</strong>ducted quality assurance <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>assessment practices <strong>of</strong> both <strong>the</strong> DBE and <strong>the</strong> PDEs.The purpose <strong>of</strong> this <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> is to present <strong>the</strong> findings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> quality assurance exercise. The<str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> serves to inform <strong>Umalusi</strong> Council as to whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Umalusi</strong> would be justified inaccepting and ratifying <strong>the</strong> DBE results. To this end, six aspects <strong>of</strong> assessment have beenmoderated and m<strong>on</strong>itored by <strong>Umalusi</strong>'s external moderators and m<strong>on</strong>itors respectively.These aspects are <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers and memoranda set by DBE panels <strong>of</strong>examiners and internally moderated by <strong>the</strong>ir internal moderators (Chapter 1); <strong>the</strong> schoolbasedassessment (SBA) moderated internally by <strong>the</strong> DBE and externally by <strong>Umalusi</strong>(Chapter 2); <strong>the</strong> memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s and <strong>the</strong> final memoranda approved by<strong>Umalusi</strong> (Chapter 3); <strong>on</strong>-site and centralised verificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking <strong>of</strong> candidates'scripts (Chapter 4); m<strong>on</strong>itoring <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>duct <strong>of</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s (Chapter 5); and <strong>the</strong>standardisati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks and verificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capturing (Chapter 6). Reports <strong>on</strong> eachaspect were submitted by external moderators and m<strong>on</strong>itors, and appear in this <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> insix chapters, as well as a seventh chapter which draws <strong>the</strong> final <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> toge<strong>the</strong>r.The informati<strong>on</strong> extracted from <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s is <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed in detail in addenda included at <strong>the</strong>end <strong>of</strong> this <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>. Summaries and interpretati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> findings are included in <strong>the</strong>chapters.The annual moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers by <strong>Umalusi</strong> is aimed at ensuring that <strong>the</strong>questi<strong>on</strong> papers for <strong>the</strong> NSC examinati<strong>on</strong> to be written at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> year and thosewritten at <strong>the</strong> beginning <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> following year as <strong>the</strong> supplementary examinati<strong>on</strong>, arecomparable, and that <strong>the</strong> two sets <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers are correct, fair, valid and reliable,comply with <strong>the</strong> appropriate curriculum and examinati<strong>on</strong> policies, and are <strong>of</strong> appropriaterigour. Moderati<strong>on</strong> also aims to ensure that questi<strong>on</strong> papers are <strong>of</strong> a standardcomparable to questi<strong>on</strong> papers <strong>of</strong> previous years so that learners <strong>of</strong> different years are notunduly advantaged or disadvantaged.The memoranda <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se questi<strong>on</strong> papers are treated with equal seriousness. The focus is<strong>on</strong> correctness, fairness, validity and reliability. They should also be user-friendly so thatmarkers are able to maintain c<strong>on</strong>sistency across <strong>the</strong> marking <strong>of</strong> scripts at <strong>the</strong> variouscentres in <strong>the</strong> provinces. Sufficient provisi<strong>on</strong> is made for alternative answers so that acandidate who approaches a questi<strong>on</strong> or topic from a different, original, but valid,perspective is not disadvantaged.There were 132 questi<strong>on</strong> papers for <strong>the</strong> end-<strong>of</strong>-year examinati<strong>on</strong> and 130 for <strong>the</strong>supplementary examinati<strong>on</strong>, encompassing 62 subjects. These subjects include <strong>the</strong> 11<strong>of</strong>ficial languages. Each language is divided into three subjects, Home Language, FirstAdditi<strong>on</strong>al Language, and Sec<strong>on</strong>d Additi<strong>on</strong>al Language. The questi<strong>on</strong> papers are<strong>the</strong>refore set <strong>on</strong> 33 language and 29 o<strong>the</strong>r subjects.vi
In general terms, <strong>the</strong> setting and moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers and memoranda weresuccessful, with 79,6% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> November 2012 and 72,3% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> March 2013 questi<strong>on</strong> papersbeing approved after <strong>the</strong> first and sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>. Two papers required a fourthmoderati<strong>on</strong> (Business Studies March 2013 and Physical Sciences P2 March 2013), and fourpapers a fifth moderati<strong>on</strong> before approval (Afrikaans FAL P1 March 2013, Afrikaans SAL P2Nov 2012 and March 2013, and Afrikaans SAL P2 March 2013).The SBA undertaken in <strong>the</strong> various provinces <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country was <strong>the</strong> next aspect to besubjected to scrutiny and moderati<strong>on</strong> by <strong>Umalusi</strong>'s external moderators. Unfortunately, thismoderati<strong>on</strong> exercise produced a different picture, which emphasised <strong>on</strong>ce again that<strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> educati<strong>on</strong> in a country does not depend in <strong>the</strong> first place <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong>its examinati<strong>on</strong>s, but ra<strong>the</strong>r <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> its teachers, that is, <strong>the</strong>ir knowledge andcommitment, and <strong>the</strong> work <strong>the</strong>y do in <strong>the</strong> classroom, whe<strong>the</strong>r in an urban or deep ruralc<strong>on</strong>text. The selecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> schools was admittedly made from <strong>the</strong> poorest performingdistricts in <strong>the</strong> country, and <strong>the</strong>re would certainly be schools and districts where betterwork was being d<strong>on</strong>e, but <strong>the</strong>re were obviously thousands <strong>of</strong> Grade 12 learners who, atthis stage, were being deprived <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> quality educati<strong>on</strong> that was <strong>the</strong>irs by right.Two moderati<strong>on</strong> exercises were undertaken independently (August 2012 and October2012) and <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed separately. These are captured in two parts (A and B) in addenda toChapter 2. The purpose <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> at all levels is verificati<strong>on</strong> and quality assurance.This year, <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>/verificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> SBA was focused <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> presence/absence andquality <strong>of</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong> and to this end <strong>the</strong> DBE's moderators were shadowed and<strong>the</strong> evidence that <strong>the</strong>y had moderated was re-moderated by <strong>Umalusi</strong>. The findings were<strong>the</strong>n compared to establish <strong>the</strong> status <strong>of</strong> SBA in <strong>the</strong> schools, and <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>. The<str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s submitted by external moderators were analysed according to <strong>the</strong> criteriadescribed in <strong>Umalusi</strong>'s “Instrument for <strong>the</strong> Moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> School-based Assessment”. Theareas <strong>of</strong> good practice and <strong>the</strong> most serious challenges were identified, and soluti<strong>on</strong>ssuggested.An analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> Phase 1 moderati<strong>on</strong> (August 2012) <strong>of</strong> 16 subjects yieldedambiguous findings. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> provinces designed acceptable comm<strong>on</strong> tasks, butalmost without excepti<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was too much reliance <strong>on</strong> previous nati<strong>on</strong>al questi<strong>on</strong>papers. In Ma<strong>the</strong>matics, for example, <strong>the</strong> Fort Beaufort district in <strong>the</strong> Eastern Cape showedsignificant improvement over <strong>the</strong> previous year, but even <strong>the</strong>re it was found that <strong>the</strong>rewas over-reliance <strong>on</strong> previous questi<strong>on</strong> papers. Regarding most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> tasks and<strong>the</strong> tasks set at school level, external moderators pointed out that almost all questi<strong>on</strong>swere pitched at <strong>the</strong> lower cognitive levels, which meant that <strong>the</strong>re was no comparis<strong>on</strong>between <strong>the</strong> SBA assessment and <strong>the</strong> final examinati<strong>on</strong>. This negative impressi<strong>on</strong> wasprobably exacerbated by <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> lowest-performing districts in each provincewere pre-selected, but <strong>the</strong>re was no doubt that a large number <strong>of</strong> teachers in <strong>the</strong> countrywere unable to cope with <strong>the</strong> rigorous implementati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> SAG relevant to <strong>the</strong>irsubjects. Judging from <strong>the</strong> comments <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> external moderators, <strong>the</strong> SBA tests were notpitched at <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels expected in Grade 12. Candidates were not beingappropriately prepared for <strong>the</strong> final examinati<strong>on</strong>s.vii
The findings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> verificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marking, <strong>on</strong>-site and centralised, were far more positive.The <strong>on</strong>-site verificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marking was experienced as very positive and important byexternal moderators. They menti<strong>on</strong>ed that it was far more meaningful to visit <strong>the</strong> markingcentres and be able to interact with markers and make a difference where problemswere experienced. With centralised moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>y were not sure about how muchwindow-dressing had g<strong>on</strong>e into preparing <strong>the</strong> sample for submissi<strong>on</strong>, whereas with <strong>on</strong>-siteverificati<strong>on</strong> a far better understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> reality was possible. It was also clear that <strong>the</strong>increased focus at memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> training <strong>of</strong> chief markers and internalmoderators was bearing fruit in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> improved marking and internal moderati<strong>on</strong>.Regarding <strong>the</strong> m<strong>on</strong>itoring <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>duct <strong>of</strong> marking, improvement was also to be seen.PDEs have by now streamlined <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>duct <strong>of</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s and marking, and <strong>the</strong>re wereno major problems. Although in some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> rural areas <strong>of</strong> KwaZulu-Natal and Limpopo,chief invigilators did not go through <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers with candidates to ensure that<strong>the</strong>y had <strong>the</strong> correct papers and that <strong>the</strong>re were no blank pages, no major problemswere <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed. The marking centres were well organised. Some laxity was <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed fromKwaZulu-Natal regarding access c<strong>on</strong>trol at <strong>the</strong> gates; however, this was not <strong>the</strong> <strong>on</strong>lysecurity, and <strong>the</strong> guards at <strong>the</strong> centre were doing <strong>the</strong>ir jobs. Access c<strong>on</strong>trol should beimproved, but <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> strict access c<strong>on</strong>trol did not put <strong>the</strong> process at risk.From <strong>the</strong> findings in <strong>the</strong> external moderators' and external m<strong>on</strong>itors' <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s, it appears that<strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> was c<strong>on</strong>ducted successfully. The effective setting <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers andmemoranda resulted in questi<strong>on</strong> papers without errors, except for some printing glitches in<strong>the</strong> provinces. Before <strong>the</strong> final memoranda were approved, <strong>the</strong> memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>sensured that <strong>the</strong> final marking memoranda made provisi<strong>on</strong> for alternative answers so thatno candidates would be disadvantaged. This was <strong>the</strong> result <strong>of</strong> lively participati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong>discussi<strong>on</strong>s by representatives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> PDEs, in what was increasingly becoming aparticipative exercise in which no representative had cause to feel disempowered. The<strong>on</strong>-site verificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marking was a highly satisfactory exercise, and should be c<strong>on</strong>tinuedand extended in future. The c<strong>on</strong>duct <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> writing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> markingproceeded well, with <strong>on</strong>ly minor problems that could be ir<strong>on</strong>ed out. The weakest link in<strong>the</strong> entire process is undoubtedly SBA, and an improvement <strong>on</strong> this fr<strong>on</strong>t will need ac<strong>on</strong>certed effort.viii
CHAPTER 1QUESTION PAPER MODERATION1 INTRODUCTIONThe moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers by <strong>Umalusi</strong> is aimed at ensuring that <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>papers for <strong>the</strong> NSC examinati<strong>on</strong> to be written at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> year and at <strong>the</strong> beginning<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> following year as a supplementary examinati<strong>on</strong> are comparable, and that <strong>the</strong> twosets <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers are correct, fair, valid and reliable, comply with <strong>the</strong> appropriatepolicies, and are <strong>of</strong> appropriate rigour. Moderati<strong>on</strong> also aims to ensure that questi<strong>on</strong>papers are <strong>of</strong> a standard comparable to questi<strong>on</strong> papers <strong>of</strong> previous years so thatlearners in <strong>the</strong> different years are not unduly advantaged or disadvantaged.The end-<strong>of</strong>-year and <strong>the</strong> supplementary questi<strong>on</strong> papers and memoranda are setsimultaneously to ensure that <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>of</strong> a comparable standard. The supplementaryquesti<strong>on</strong> papers also serve as back-up papers should anything go wr<strong>on</strong>g during <strong>the</strong> end<strong>of</strong>-yearexaminati<strong>on</strong>.The memoranda for <strong>the</strong>se questi<strong>on</strong> papers are treated with equal seriousness, with <strong>the</strong>focus being <strong>on</strong> correctness, fairness, validity and reliability. Memoranda should also beuser-friendly so that markers are able to maintain c<strong>on</strong>sistency across <strong>the</strong> marking <strong>of</strong> scriptsat various centres across <strong>the</strong> country. Sufficient provisi<strong>on</strong> is made for alternative answers sothat a candidate who approaches a questi<strong>on</strong> or topic from a different, original, but valid,perspective is not disadvantaged.The <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s have been captured in Addendum 1, and a summary and findings arepresented in this chapter. Capturing <strong>the</strong> findings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper moderati<strong>on</strong> wasnot without its challenges, however. It was singularly difficult to access all <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s. Because<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> stringent security maintained around <strong>the</strong> setting <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers at <strong>the</strong> DBE,<strong>Umalusi</strong> moderators are not permitted to email any <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s to <strong>Umalusi</strong>. The <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s have tobe accessed after <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> has been written. In some cases it was not possible toaccess any <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s at all, and in o<strong>the</strong>r instances it was <strong>on</strong>ly possible to capture <strong>the</strong> finalmoderati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>.For 2012, 62 subjects were examined, represented by 132 questi<strong>on</strong> papers andmemoranda that were set and moderated for <strong>the</strong> November examinati<strong>on</strong> and 1301
questi<strong>on</strong> papers for March 2013 (excluding two practical papers for Design and VisualArts).2 SCOPEThe table below provides an overview <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> process <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papersand memoranda set for both <strong>the</strong> November 2012 and <strong>the</strong> March 2013 supplementaryexaminati<strong>on</strong>s.Table 1.1: Dates for first and final moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papersApproval datesQuesti<strong>on</strong> papers and memoranda received November 2012 March 2013Date Moderati<strong>on</strong> Date Moderati<strong>on</strong>Accounting 05.03.12 First05.03.12 Only07.03.12 FinalAfrikaans FAL P1 28.04.1229.07.12FirstFinal28.04.12 FirstFinalAfrikaans FAL P2 04.08.1208.09.12FirstFinal04.07.1204.10.12FirstFinalAfrikaans FAL P3 23.04.1220.05.12FirstFinal23.04.12 FirstFinalAfrikaans HL P1 03.04.1230.05.12FirstFinal05.04.1230.05.12FirstFinalAfrikaans HL P2 30.05.1210.06.12FirstFinal31.05.1211.06.12FirstFinalAfrikaans HL P3 15.03.1201.04.12FirstFinal15.03.1204.05.12FirstFinalAfrikaans SAL P1 30.06.1208.09.12FirstFinal03.07.12 FirstFinalAfrikaans SAL P2 28.04.1224.06.12FirstFinal28.04.1204.07.12FirstFinalAgricultural Management Practices 14.04.1213.05.12FirstFinal14.04.1213.05.12FirstFinalAgricultural Sciences P1 04.04.1229.04.12FirstFinal04.04.1229.04.12FirstFinalAgricultural Sciences P2 29.04.12 Only 29.04.12 OnlyAgricultural Technology 22.03.1226.05.12FirstFinal22.05.1225.05.12FirstFinalBusiness Studies 04.06.1210.06.12FirstFinal10.06.1212.08.12FirstFinal2
Approval datesQuesti<strong>on</strong> papers and memoranda received November 2012 March 2013Date Moderati<strong>on</strong> Date Moderati<strong>on</strong>Civil Technology 24.04.1218.05.12FirstFinal24.04.1218.05.12FirstFinalComputer Applicati<strong>on</strong>s Technology P1 30.05.12 FirstFinal24.04.12 FirstFinalComputer Applicati<strong>on</strong>s Technology P2 30.05.1212.06.12FirstFinal24.04.12 FirstFinalC<strong>on</strong>sumer Studies 13.03.1224.04.12FirstFinal13.03.1225.04.12FirstFinalDance Studies 23.03.12 Only 23.03.12 OnlyDesign P1 30.03.12 Only 30.03.12 OnlyDesign P2 30.03.12 Only N/ADramatic Arts 11.03.1212.05.12FirstFinal11.03.1212.05.12FirstFinalEc<strong>on</strong>omics 11.03.1222.04.12FirstFinal22.04.1223.04.12FirstFinalElectrical Technology 09.03.12 Only 09.03.12 OnlyEngineering Graphics & Design P1 11.03.12 Only 09.03.12 OnlyEngineering Graphics & Design P2 11.03.12 Only 09.03.12 OnlyEnglish FAL P1 11.03.1201.06.12FirstFinal11.03.1226.04.12FirstFinalEnglish FAL P2 26.05.1202.06.12FirstFinal25.05.1203.06.12FirstFinalEnglish FAL P3 09.03.1225.04.12FirstFinal09.03.1225.04.12FirstFinalEnglish HL P1 21.05.1224.08.12FirstFinal22.05.1224.08.12FirstFinalEnglish HL P2 23.06.12 First28.08.12 Only31.08.12 FinalEnglish HL P3 22.05.1224.08.12FirstFinal22.05.1223.08.12FirstFinalEnglish SAL P1 20.07.1221.07.12FirstFinal20.07.1221.07.12FirstFinalEnglish SAL P2 20.07.12 Only 20.07.12 FirstFinalGeography P1 04.04.1211.06.12FirstFinal05.04.1212.06.12FirstFinalGeography P2 03.04.1211.06.12FirstFinal04.04.1211.06.12FirstFinalHistory P1 02.04.1203.04.12FirstFinal02.04.1222.05.12FirstFinal3
Approval datesQuesti<strong>on</strong> papers and memoranda received November 2012 March 2013Date Moderati<strong>on</strong> Date Moderati<strong>on</strong>History P2 03.04.1204.04.12FirstFinal03.04.1222.05.12FirstFinalHospitality Studies 20.03.1220.03.12FirstFinal21.03.1222.03.12FirstFinalInformati<strong>on</strong> Technology P1 12.07.1224.07.12FirstFinal25.07.1231.07.12FirstFinalInformati<strong>on</strong> Technology P2 24.05.1214.06.12FirstFinal 13.06.12FirstFinalIsiNdebele FAL P1 25.07.12 Only 25.07.12 FirstFinalIsiNdebele FAL P2 08.09.12 Only 25.07.12 FirstFinalIsiNdebele FAL P3 25.07.12 Only 25.07.12 FirstFinalIsiNdebele HL P1 25.04.12 Only 25.04.12 OnlyIsiNdebele HL P2 15.03.12 Only 15.03.12 OnlyIsiNdebele HL P3 25.04.12 Only 25.04.12 OnlyIsiNdebele SAL P1 25.07.12 Only 25.07.12 OnlyIsiNdebele SAL P2 25.07.12 Only 25.07.12 OnlyIsiXhosa FAL P1No date26.06.12FirstFinal18.05.1226.06.12FirstFinalIsiXhosa FAL P228.06.12FirstFinal 23.06.12FirstFinalIsiXhosa FAL P3 13.04.1229.06.12FirstFinal 29.06.12FirstFinalIsiXhosa HL P1 20.05.1223.05.12FirstFinal21.05.1223.05.12FirstFinalIsiXhosa HL P2 02.07.1204.07.12FirstFinal03.07.1204.07.12FirstFinalIsiXhosa HL P3 18.05.1223.05.12FirstFinal18.05.1223.05.12FirstFinalIsiXhosa SAL P1 23.03.1223.03.12FirstFinal 20.05.12FirstFinalIsiXhosa SAL P2No date25.03.12FirstFinal 21.05.12FirstFinalIsiZulu FAL P1 18.05.1219.05.12FirstFinal 24.06.12FirstFinalIsiZulu FAL P2 24.06.12 Only 04.07.12 OnlyIsiZulu FAL P3 20.12.11 FirstFinal21.12.11 Only4
Approval datesQuesti<strong>on</strong> papers and memoranda received November 2012 March 2013Date Moderati<strong>on</strong> Date Moderati<strong>on</strong>IsiZulu HL P1 21.12.11 FirstFinal22.12.11 FirstFinalIsiZulu HL P2 04.04.12 FirstFinal05.04.12 FirstFinalIsiZulu HL P3 04.04.12 Only 04.04.12 OnlyIsiZulu SAL P114.07.12FirstFinal 14.07.12FirstFinalIsiZulu SAL P2 16.07.12 Only 24.03.12 OnlyLife Sciences P1 Versi<strong>on</strong> 1 24.04.1231.05.12FirstFinal26.04.1201.06.12FirstFinalLife Sciences P2 Versi<strong>on</strong> 1 25.04.1201.06.12FirstFinal30.05.1201.06.12FirstFinalLife Sciences P1 Versi<strong>on</strong> 2 11.06.1223.07.12FirstFinal11.06.1224.07.12FirstFinalLife Sciences P2 Versi<strong>on</strong> 2 11.06.1224.07.12FirstFinal11.06.1223.07.12FirstFinalMa<strong>the</strong>matical Literacy P1 02.04.1217.06.12FirstFinal24.06.1211.08.12FirstFinalMa<strong>the</strong>matical Literacy P2 04.04.1222.06.12FirstFinal11.08.1216.09.12FirstFinalMa<strong>the</strong>matics P1 05.04.1210.07.12FirstFinal05.04.1210.07.12FirstFinalMa<strong>the</strong>matics P2 04.04.1210.07.12FirstFinal04.04.1220.07.12FirstFinalMa<strong>the</strong>matics P3 12.07.12 Only 12.07.12 OnlyMechanical Technology 16.03.12 Only 18.03.12 OnlyMusic P1 12.04.1202.06.12FirstFinal11.04.1202.06.12FirstFinalMusic P2 12.04.1202.06.12FirstFinal12.04.1206.06.12FirstFinalPhysical Sciences P1 14.04.1218.06.12FirstFinal15.04.1215.07.12FirstFinalPhysical Sciences P2 12.05.1216.06.12FirstFinal12.05.1214.07.12FirstFinalReligi<strong>on</strong> Studies P1 15.06.1215.06.12FirstFinal20.07.1220.07.12FirstFinalReligi<strong>on</strong> Studies P2 15.06.1215.06.12FirstFinal21.07.1221.07.12FirstFinalSepedi FAL P1 16.03.1223.03.12FirstFinal17.03.1223.03.12FirstFinal5
Approval datesQuesti<strong>on</strong> papers and memoranda received November 2012 March 2013Date Moderati<strong>on</strong> Date Moderati<strong>on</strong>Sepedi FAL P2 26.06.12 FirstFirst27.06.12 Final 27.06.12 FinalSepedi FAL P3 16.03.1223.03.12FirstFinal23.03.1223.03.12FirstFinalSepedi HL P1 16.03.1224.03.12FirstFinal17.03.1223.03.12FirstFinalSepedi HL P2 17.04.12 FirstFinalFirstFinalSepedi HL P3 24.03.1224.03.12FirstFinal23.03.1216.04.12FirstFinalSepedi SAL P1 18.07.1220.07.12FirstFinal 27.07.12FirstFinalSepedi SAL P2 27.06.1228.06.12FirstFinalFirstFinalSesotho FAL P130.03.12FirstFinalFirstFinalSesotho FAL P204.04.12FirstFinalFirstFinalSesotho FAL P3 22.04.1205.05.12FirstFinal21.04.1206.05.12FirstFinalSesotho HL P1 01.06.1204.06.12FirstFinal03.06.1204.06.12FirstFinalSesotho HL P2 13.06.1218.06.12FirstFinal14.06.1218.06.12FirstFinalSesotho HL P3 01.03.1208.03.12FirstFinal01.03.1208.03.12FirstFinalSesotho SAL P1FirstFinalFirstFinalSesotho SAL P2FirstFinalFirstFinalSetswana FAL P130.03.12FirstFinal 30.03.12FirstFinalSetswana FAL P2 01.04.1204.04.12FirstFinal02.04.1204.04.12FirstFinalSetswana FAL P329.03.12FirstFinal 29.03.12FirstFinalSetswana HL P1 28.03.12 FirstFinal28.03.1214.05.12FirstFinalSetswana HL P2FirstFinalFirstFinal6
Approval datesQuesti<strong>on</strong> papers and memoranda received November 2012 March 2013Date Moderati<strong>on</strong> Date Moderati<strong>on</strong>Setswana HL P3FirstFinal28.03.1203.04.12FirstFinalSetswana SAL P1FirstFirst10.05.12 Final 10.05.12 FinalSetswana SAL P2 10.03.12 Only 10.03.12 OnlySiswati FAL P114.07.12FirstFinal 14.07.12FirstFinalSiswati FAL P215.07.12FirstFinal 15.07.12FirstFinalSiswati FAL P3 19.05.1214.07.12FirstFinal19.05.1214.07.12FirstFinalSiswati HL P115.07.12FirstFinal 15.07.12FirstFinalSiswati HL P215.07.12FirstFinal 15.07.12FirstFinalSiswati HL P3 20.05.12 FirstFinal20.05.12 FirstFinalSiswati SAL P115.07.12FirstFinal 15.07.12FirstFinalSiswati SAL P2 20.05.1215.07.12FirstFinal20.05.1215.07.12FirstFinalTourism 05.03.12 First06.03.12 Only19.05.12 FinalTshivenda FAL P1 26.05.12 Only 26.05.12 OnlyTshivenda FAL P2 No date Only No date OnlyTshivenda FAL P3 26.05.12 Only 26.05.12 OnlyTshivenda HL P1No date26.05.12FirstFinal24.05.1226.05.12FirstFinalTshivenda HL P2 No date Only No date OnlyTshivenda HL P3 26.05.12 Only 26.05.12 OnlyTshivenda SAL P1FirstNo date OnlyNo date FinalTshivenda SAL P2 26.05.12 Only 26.05.12 OnlyVisual Arts P1 22.04.12 Only 22.04.12 OnlyVisual Arts P2 22.04.12 Only N/AXits<strong>on</strong>ga FAL P128.06.12FirstFinal 29.06.12FirstFinalXits<strong>on</strong>ga FAL P214.07.12FirstFinal 14.07.12FirstFinal7
Approval datesQuesti<strong>on</strong> papers and memoranda receivedXits<strong>on</strong>ga FAL P3Xits<strong>on</strong>ga HL P1Xits<strong>on</strong>ga HL P2Xits<strong>on</strong>ga HL P3Xits<strong>on</strong>ga SAL P1Xits<strong>on</strong>ga SAL P2November 2012 March 2013Date Moderati<strong>on</strong> Date Moderati<strong>on</strong>FirstFirst29.05.12 Final 29.05.12 FinalFirstFirst14.07.12 Final 21.07.12 FinalFirstFirst14.07.12 Final 15.07.12 FinalFirstFirst15.07.12 Final 15.07.12 FinalFirstFirst14.07.12 Final 29.07.12 FinalFirstFirst17.03.12 Final 17.03.12 FinalTable 1.2: Number <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>s before approval <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papersNumber <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>ducted before approvalQuesti<strong>on</strong> papers and memoranda receivedNovember 2012 March 20131 2 3 4 1 2 3 4Accounting √ √Afrikaans FAL P1 √ √(5)Afrikaans FAL P2 √ √Afrikaans FAL P3 √ √Afrikaans HL P1 √ √Afrikaans HL P2 √ √Afrikaans HL P3 √ √Afrikaans SAL P1 √(5) √(5)Afrikaans SAL P2 √ √(5)Agricultural Management Practices √ √Agricultural Sciences P1 √ √Agricultural Sciences P2 √ √Agricultural Technology √ √Business Studies √ √Civil Technology √ √Computer Applicati<strong>on</strong>s Technology P1 √ √Computer Applicati<strong>on</strong>s Technology P2 √ √C<strong>on</strong>sumer Studies √ √Dance Studies √ √Design P1 √ √Design P2 √ - - - -8
Number <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>ducted before approvalQuesti<strong>on</strong> papers and memoranda receivedNovember 2012 March 20131 2 3 4 1 2 3 4Dramatic Arts √ √Ec<strong>on</strong>omics √ √Electrical Technology √ √Engineering Graphics & Design P1 √ √Engineering Graphics & Design P2 √ √English FAL P1 √ √English FAL P2 √ √English FAL P3 √ √English HL P1 √ √English HL P2 √ √English HL P3 √ √English SAL P1 √ √English SAL P2 √ √Geography P1 √ √Geography P2 √ √History P1 √ √History P2 √ √Hospitality Studies √ √Informati<strong>on</strong> Technology P1 √ √Informati<strong>on</strong> Technology P2 √ √IsiNdebele FAL P1 √ √IsiNdebele FAL P2 √ √IsiNdebele FAL P3 √ √IsiNdebele HL P1 √ √IsiNdebele HL P2 √ √IsiNdebele HL P3 √ √IsiNdebele SAL P1 √ √IsiNdebele SAL P2 √ √IsiXhosa FAL P1 √ √IsiXhosa FAL P2 √ √IsiXhosa FAL P3 √ √IsiXhosa HL P1 √ √IsiXhosa HL P2 √ √IsiXhosa HL P3 √ √IsiXhosa SAL P1 √ √IsiXhosa SAL P2 √ √IsiZulu FAL P1 √ √IsiZulu FAL P2 √ √9
Number <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>ducted before approvalQuesti<strong>on</strong> papers and memoranda receivedNovember 2012 March 20131 2 3 4 1 2 3 4IsiZulu FAL P3 √ √IsiZulu HL P1IsiZulu HL P2√IsiZulu HL P3 √ √IsiZulu SAL P1 √ √IsiZulu SAL P2 √ √Life Sciences P1 Versi<strong>on</strong> 1 √ √Life Sciences P2 Versi<strong>on</strong> 1 √ √Life Sciences P1 Versi<strong>on</strong> 2 √ √Life Sciences P2 Versi<strong>on</strong> 2 √ √Ma<strong>the</strong>matical Literacy P1 √ √Ma<strong>the</strong>matical Literacy P2 √ √Ma<strong>the</strong>matics P1 √ √Ma<strong>the</strong>matics P2 √ √Ma<strong>the</strong>matics P3 √ √Mechanical Technology √ √Music P1 √ √Music P2 √ √Physical Sciences P1 √ √Physical Sciences P2 √ √Religi<strong>on</strong> Studies P1 √ √Religi<strong>on</strong> Studies P2 √ √Sepedi FAL P1 √ √Sepedi FAL P2 √ √Sepedi FAL P3 √ √Sepedi HL P1 √ √Sepedi HL P2√Sepedi HL P3 √ √Sepedi SAL P1 √ √Sepedi SAL P2 √ √Sesotho FAL P1√Sesotho FAL P2√Sesotho FAL P3 √ √Sesotho HL P1 √ √Sesotho HL P2 √ √Sesotho HL P3 √ √Sesotho SAL P1√Sesotho SAL P2√10
Number <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>ducted before approvalQuesti<strong>on</strong> papers and memoranda receivedNovember 2012 March 20131 2 3 4 1 2 3 4Setswana FAL P1 √ √Setswana FAL P2 √ √Setswana FAL P3 √ √Setswana HL P1 √ √Setswana HL P2Setswana HL P3 √ √Setswana SAL P1√Setswana SAL P2√Siswati FAL P1√Siswati FAL P2√Siswati FAL P3 √ √Siswati HL P1 √ √Siswati HL P2 √ √Siswati HL P3 √ √Siswati SAL P1 √ √Siswati SAL P2 √ √Tourism √ √Tshivenda FAL P1 √ √Tshivenda FAL P2 √ √Tshivenda FAL P3 √ √Tshivenda HL P1 √ √Tshivenda HL P2 √ √Tshivenda HL P3 √ √Tshivenda SAL P1 √ √Tshivenda SAL P2 √ √Visual Arts P1 √ √Visual Arts P2 √ - - - -Xits<strong>on</strong>ga FAL P1 √ √Xits<strong>on</strong>ga FAL P2 √ √Xits<strong>on</strong>ga FAL P3 √ √Xits<strong>on</strong>ga HL P1 √ √Xits<strong>on</strong>ga HL P2 √ √Xits<strong>on</strong>ga HL P3 √ √Xits<strong>on</strong>ga SAL P1 √ √Xits<strong>on</strong>ga SAL P2 √ √11
3 FINDINGSIn general, it appeared that <strong>the</strong> setting and moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers andmemoranda went quite well.It should be noted that this chapter presents findings based <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>questi<strong>on</strong> papers. The reas<strong>on</strong>ing behind this kind <strong>of</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing is to provide <strong>the</strong> DBE with <strong>the</strong>status <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers submitted at first moderati<strong>on</strong>, with a view to <strong>the</strong>se c<strong>on</strong>cernsbeing addressed before <strong>the</strong> setting <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> next cycle <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers. The c<strong>on</strong>cernsand problematic areas identified at first moderati<strong>on</strong> were all corrected during subsequentmoderati<strong>on</strong>s before <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers were finally approved.Of <strong>the</strong> 262 questi<strong>on</strong> papers that were set for November 2012 and March 2013, <strong>the</strong>findings were as follows:Approved at 1stmodApproved at 2ndmodApproved at 3rdmodApproved at 4th&5th modTotal <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>edNo. % No. % No. % No. %Nov ‘12 36 27,3 75 56,8 20 15.2 1 0,7 132Mar ‘13 36 27,7 71 54,6 18 13.9 5 3,8 130The following table gives some idea <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> external moderators’ findings at <strong>the</strong> firstmoderati<strong>on</strong>, which was based <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> criteria for <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>papers.<strong>Umalusi</strong> criteria for <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers:1. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria2. Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>3. C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage4. Cognitive skills5. Marking memorandum6. Language and bias7. Adherence to policies/guidelines8. Predictability12
Table 1.3: Number <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers in which <strong>the</strong> criteria were not satisfied at firstmoderati<strong>on</strong>Criteria for moderati<strong>on</strong>Exam 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Nov ‘12 58 18 43 37 47 31 2 10% 43,9 13,6 32,6 28,0 35,6 23,5 1,5 7,6Mar ‘13 57 24 38 36 49 30 7 14% 43,8 18,5 28,8 27,7 37,7 23,1 5,4 10,8Please note: The numbers 1 - 8 are linked to <strong>Umalusi</strong> criteria <strong>on</strong> page 12.It is clear from Table 1.3 that very similar problems were experienced in <strong>the</strong> two sets <strong>of</strong>questi<strong>on</strong> papers – November 2012 and March 2013. This is elaborated <strong>on</strong> below.<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteriaThe technical criteria were generally not met (43,9% and 43,8% for November and Marchrespectively). In a way this finding reflects <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong>, as <strong>on</strong>ewould not expect so many errors to escape <strong>the</strong> notice <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> internal moderators.Marking memorandumMany external moderators (35,6% and 37,7% respectively) were dissatisfied with <strong>the</strong> quality<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum. Errors were identified, and a comm<strong>on</strong> problem was thatfew alternative answers were provided. There were several complaints about <strong>the</strong> number<strong>of</strong> alternative textbooks in <strong>the</strong> field, not all <strong>of</strong> which were equally suitable, and this gaverise to arguments at memo discussi<strong>on</strong>s.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverageIn <strong>the</strong> November questi<strong>on</strong> papers 32,6% did not satisfy <strong>the</strong> external moderators’expectati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent coverage, which meant in effect that <strong>the</strong>y did not satisfy <strong>the</strong>SAG. In <strong>the</strong> March papers <strong>the</strong> percentage was reduced to 28,8%.Cognitive skillsOf <strong>the</strong> November and March questi<strong>on</strong> papers, 28% and 27,7% respectively did not satisfy<strong>the</strong> norms for <strong>the</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s across <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels. This might have beenpartly due to <strong>the</strong> incorrect use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> analysis grid. The DBE should ensure that all chiefexaminers and internal moderators are familiar with <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> relevant tax<strong>on</strong>omiesand analysis grids.13
Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>Problematic internal moderati<strong>on</strong> issues were identified in 13,6% <strong>of</strong> November and 18,5% <strong>of</strong>March questi<strong>on</strong> papers. A comm<strong>on</strong> complaint was <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> rigour in internalmoderati<strong>on</strong>. This relatively low finding might be misleading, however. Problems withtechnical criteria, c<strong>on</strong>tent coverage, marking memoranda, and language and bias allpoint to inadequate internal moderati<strong>on</strong>. Most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se problems should be sorted outbefore external moderati<strong>on</strong>, as an external moderator should not still be picking uplanguage and vocabulary errors, or technical failings.Language and biasThere was a surprisingly high percentage <strong>of</strong> language and bias problems, 23,5% and 23,1%respectively. There were many remarks about inaccessible language and various kinds <strong>of</strong>bias – in favour <strong>of</strong> a certain type <strong>of</strong> music, presenting a negative view <strong>of</strong> a particular area<strong>of</strong> employment, discriminati<strong>on</strong> against certain religi<strong>on</strong>s etc.Adherence to policies/guidelinesThese criteria elicited <strong>the</strong> least negative findings, 1,5% and 5,4% respectively.PredictabilityThis was not a huge problem, 7,6% and 10,8% respectively, but it was a matter for c<strong>on</strong>cernthat some external moderators found that questi<strong>on</strong>s had been lifted from <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>papers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> previous two years. O<strong>the</strong>rs complained that without copies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> previousthree years’ questi<strong>on</strong> papers in <strong>the</strong> file, this was impossible to judge.4 AREAS OF GOOD PRACTICEEmanating from <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s, it appeared that <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> process had run fairlysmoothly, with six questi<strong>on</strong> papers and memoranda going into fourth and fifthmoderati<strong>on</strong>s. In fact, in respect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> November examinati<strong>on</strong>, 79,6% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>papers and memoranda were approved after <strong>the</strong> first and sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong>,while 72,3% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> March papers were also approved after <strong>the</strong> first and sec<strong>on</strong>d externalmoderati<strong>on</strong>. This is supported by <strong>the</strong> findings in Chapter 3, which show that at <strong>the</strong> memodiscussi<strong>on</strong>s few errors were corrected, but that after pre-marking additi<strong>on</strong>al alternativeanswers were included.14
5 CHALLENGES The inaccessibility <strong>of</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers and memorandahas a negative effect <strong>on</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong>’s <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing functi<strong>on</strong>. Afrikaans FAL and SAL: Four questi<strong>on</strong> papers went to five moderati<strong>on</strong>s, with <strong>the</strong> resultthat <strong>the</strong> final papers were approved very late. The FAL P2 was signed <strong>of</strong>f <strong>on</strong> 14September 2012. If moderati<strong>on</strong> has to c<strong>on</strong>tinue right up to September m<strong>on</strong>th <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> year in which <strong>the</strong>questi<strong>on</strong> papers have to be written, it indicates that <strong>the</strong> process is being started toolate. One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> problems appears to be <strong>the</strong> late appointment <strong>of</strong> new examiningpanels. There are still examiners and internal moderators who experience problems with <strong>the</strong>cognitive analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir questi<strong>on</strong> papers and with drawing up an accurate analysisgrid. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> external moderators <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed that <strong>the</strong>y are drawn slowly into <strong>the</strong>setting <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers just to ensure that questi<strong>on</strong> papers <strong>of</strong> good quality andstandard are set and approved.6 RECOMMENDATIONSThe method <strong>of</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing to <strong>Umalusi</strong> at each stage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> external moderati<strong>on</strong> processshould be streamlined to enable <strong>Umalusi</strong> to fulfil its functi<strong>on</strong> optimally. The most preferablemethod is electr<strong>on</strong>ic submissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s to <strong>Umalusi</strong>.The reas<strong>on</strong> for <strong>the</strong> inability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE examinati<strong>on</strong> panel and <strong>the</strong> external moderators toarrive at a comm<strong>on</strong> understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> requirements for Afrikaans FAL and SAL shouldbe looked into. It should not be necessary to moderate any questi<strong>on</strong> paper five times.The dates for <strong>the</strong> setting <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers and <strong>the</strong> external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re<strong>of</strong> shouldbe planned for early in <strong>the</strong> previous year. <strong>Umalusi</strong> has given <strong>the</strong> DBE a directive to followan 18-m<strong>on</strong>th cycle. The DBE is urged to ensure that it adheres to <strong>the</strong> following deadlinesfor submissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers: 30 April for first moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> all questi<strong>on</strong> papers, and30 July for approval and signing <strong>of</strong>f <strong>of</strong> all questi<strong>on</strong> papers.The DBE should ensure that its examining panels and internal moderators are familiar with<strong>the</strong> relevant tax<strong>on</strong>omies and are able to analyse <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s.15
There should be minimal interacti<strong>on</strong> between <strong>the</strong> DBE panels and <strong>Umalusi</strong> externalmoderators so as to eliminate cases where external moderators find <strong>the</strong>mselves setting <strong>the</strong>questi<strong>on</strong> papers.7 CONCLUSIONFor <strong>the</strong> credibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> NSC examinati<strong>on</strong> it is vitally important that every effort be madeto adhere to <strong>the</strong> agreed deadlines for <strong>the</strong> setting and moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers.Any delays affect <strong>Umalusi</strong> in its quality assurance exercise. Added to this, every effortshould be made to set questi<strong>on</strong> papers <strong>of</strong> an appropriate quality and standard so that<strong>the</strong>y can be ideally approved at first moderati<strong>on</strong>.(Please refer to Addenda 1 <strong>on</strong> page 66 for more details <strong>on</strong> this chapter)16
CHAPTER 2MODERATION AND VERIFICATION OF GRADE 12SCHOOL-BASED ASSESSMENT1 INTRODUCTIONSchool-based assessment (SBA) is a fundamental comp<strong>on</strong>ent in <strong>the</strong> calculati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>final assessment results that learners are awarded at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> Grade 12.In keeping with its mandate, <strong>Umalusi</strong> undertook <strong>the</strong> verificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> quality assuranceprocesses for SBA for <strong>the</strong> Nati<strong>on</strong>al Senior Certificate (NSC) in 2012. The plans were linkeddirectly to <strong>the</strong> DBE plans for quality assurance <strong>of</strong> SBA. <strong>Umalusi</strong> employed a two-pr<strong>on</strong>gedquality assurance process: m<strong>on</strong>itoring <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> processes and verificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>ducted by <strong>the</strong> DBE moderators.The purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> SBA was to ensure that internal moderati<strong>on</strong> wasc<strong>on</strong>ducted at all levels within provinces. It also aimed to verify that DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> hadtaken place, and to ascertain <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> DBE input. The standard <strong>of</strong> assessment tasks wasalso looked into to verify that assessment was fair, reliable and valid, and c<strong>on</strong>sistent with<strong>the</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al standards.In Phase 1 (June/July 2012), <strong>Umalusi</strong> external moderators were deployed to m<strong>on</strong>itor <strong>the</strong>DBE process <strong>of</strong> evaluati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> assessment instruments (in <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files), and toverify (moderate) <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files that <strong>the</strong> DBE SBA moderators had moderated.In Phase 2 (October/November 2012), <strong>Umalusi</strong> external moderators verified samples <strong>of</strong>learner evidence files and teachers’ files that <strong>the</strong> DBE SBA moderators had alreadymoderated. This exercise gave <strong>Umalusi</strong> external moderators <strong>the</strong> opportunity to verify <strong>the</strong>quality <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> SBA in <strong>the</strong> schools.Life Orientati<strong>on</strong> was moderated throughout all nine provinces. The Life Orientati<strong>on</strong>questi<strong>on</strong> paper written <strong>on</strong> 7 September 2012 represented a watershed moment in <strong>the</strong>history <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject when learners in all provinces sat simultaneously for a comm<strong>on</strong>assessment task (CAT) that was set by <strong>the</strong> DBE and moderated externally by <strong>Umalusi</strong>. Themarking <strong>of</strong> this task was not centralised, but carried out at <strong>the</strong> schools. It was <strong>the</strong> first timethat this type <strong>of</strong> assessment had taken place, and <strong>the</strong> aim was to ensure that Life17
Orientati<strong>on</strong> marks could be standardised by means <strong>of</strong> a comm<strong>on</strong> benchmark in <strong>the</strong> form<strong>of</strong> an externally assessed task.2 SCOPEPHASE 1: VERIFICATION OF TEACHERS’ FILESVerificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE-moderated teachers’ files was c<strong>on</strong>ducted in four selected PEDs,and in eight subjects as indicated below. C<strong>on</strong>solidated <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> following werereceived:Provincial Educati<strong>on</strong> Department Subject DateEastern Cape English First Additi<strong>on</strong>al Language 27 & 28 June 2012Physical SciencesLife Orientati<strong>on</strong> 4 & 5 July 2012KwaZulu-NatalLimpopoMpumalangaAccountingMa<strong>the</strong>matics2 & 3 July 2012HistoryLife Orientati<strong>on</strong> 6 & 7 July 2012AccountingLife Sciences5 & 6 July 2012Life Orientati<strong>on</strong> 4 & 5 July 2012GeographyLife Sciences12 & 13 July 2012Life Orientati<strong>on</strong> 6 & 7 July 2012A total <strong>of</strong> 10 schools from two under-performing districts in each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> PEDs were preselectedby <strong>the</strong> DBE. Each selected district was expected to submit 10 teachers’ files.All <strong>the</strong> findings have been captured in Addendum 2A <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> main technical <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>. Asummary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> findings is presented below.PHASE 2: QUALITY ASSURANCE OF LEARNERS’ FILESIn October 2012, <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d phase focused <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> carried out by <strong>the</strong> DBEand <strong>the</strong> learners’ performance. Two districts from each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> nine provinces weretargeted. Five schools per district were selected, and 20 learners’ files per school and permoderated subject (8 subjects) as well as <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files were submitted. Most districtsand schools complied with <strong>the</strong>se requirements in spite <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> wasd<strong>on</strong>e at a difficult time <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> year, just before <strong>the</strong> final examinati<strong>on</strong>s.18
A blank moderati<strong>on</strong> tool was provided to <strong>Umalusi</strong> by <strong>the</strong> DBE. The tool was appropriateand made provisi<strong>on</strong> for <strong>the</strong> following criteria: Compliance with <strong>the</strong> Nati<strong>on</strong>al Curriculum and Assessment Policies (NSC and SAG):o C<strong>on</strong>tent coverageo Cognitive skillso <strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> individual questi<strong>on</strong>sC<strong>on</strong>solidated <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> following subjects were submitted by <strong>Umalusi</strong>’s externalmoderators:Provincial Educati<strong>on</strong>DepartmentSubjectScope(Districts)Eastern Cape History Fort BeaufortLife Orientati<strong>on</strong>Ma<strong>the</strong>maticsPhysical SciencesMbizanaFree State Accounting FezileDabiEnglish FALLife Orientati<strong>on</strong>Life SciencesPhysical SciencesMo<strong>the</strong>oGauteng Accounting D4 (Tshwane South)Life Orientati<strong>on</strong>Life SciencesD8 (Sedibeng West)KwaZulu-Natal Geography UmlaziHistoryLife Orientati<strong>on</strong>Ma<strong>the</strong>maticsPhysical SciencesUthunguluLimpopo Accounting CapricornAgricultural SciencesEnglish FALLife Orientati<strong>on</strong>Life SciencesSekhukhuneMpumalanga Accounting BohlabeloAgricultural SciencesLife Orientati<strong>on</strong>Life SciencesGert Sibanda(Nkangala)Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape Geography JT GaetsweHistoryLife Orientati<strong>on</strong>PixleykaSeme19
tasks were far too easy. The historical enquiry in <strong>the</strong> subject History, which extended overthree years, showed no signs <strong>of</strong> m<strong>on</strong>itoring.3.2 INTERNAL MODERATION ACROSS DIFFERENT LEVELSThere was some evidence <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> teachers’ files, but up<strong>on</strong> closer scrutiny itcame to light that <strong>the</strong>y were merely checked for compliance using a tick-box approach,and no attenti<strong>on</strong> appeared to have been paid to qualitative moderati<strong>on</strong>. What hadhappened in most cases was m<strong>on</strong>itoring and not moderati<strong>on</strong>.Comm<strong>on</strong> tasks appeared not to have been moderated because most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m revealederrors and inadequacies that had not been picked up. Compliance was checked, whilequality and cognitive demand were neglected.3.3 FEEDBACK AND SUPPORTWhile <strong>the</strong>re was evidence <strong>of</strong> general support by subject advisors and school hierarchies insome cases, this was not comm<strong>on</strong> and very little feedback was evident. Where <strong>the</strong>re wasfeedback, it had to do with compliance and not qualitative issues. Compliance isobviously very important, but moderati<strong>on</strong> has to do with qualitative issues. Very littledevelopmental feedback was found, and nothing <strong>on</strong> standards. Moreover, internal (inschool)moderati<strong>on</strong> was seriously neglected.4 AREAS OF GOOD PRACTICE The system <strong>of</strong> files/portfolios generally worked well. They were well organised andmanaged, and easily accessible. The use <strong>of</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> tasks, which was happening in most provinces, led to a certainlevel <strong>of</strong> standardisati<strong>on</strong>. There were pockets <strong>of</strong> good comm<strong>on</strong> tests and June examinati<strong>on</strong>s set at schoollevel. Diagnostic analysis was being implemented to good effect in some provinces, forexample Limpopo. At some schools <strong>the</strong>re was evidence <strong>of</strong> support for Life Orientati<strong>on</strong>. Marking hadstabilised and questi<strong>on</strong> papers were appropriate. All schools had completed <strong>the</strong> required tasks for Terms 1 and 2.21
5 CHALLENGES <strong>Umalusi</strong> external moderators were provided with a blank DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> tool. While<strong>the</strong> tool was judged as appropriate, it did not assist in providing external moderatorswith a picture <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>ducted by <strong>the</strong> DBE moderators. There was a lack <strong>of</strong> rigorous moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> teachers’ files and feedback to <strong>the</strong>m forsupport and improvement. In some instances <strong>the</strong>re was no distincti<strong>on</strong> between m<strong>on</strong>itoring and moderati<strong>on</strong>. The standard <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers/tasks was pitched at lower cognitive levels, mainlyin school-designed tasks, but also in some comm<strong>on</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s/tasks. There waslittle variety in questi<strong>on</strong>s. Teachers and examiners did not make use <strong>of</strong> analysis grids. Projects and written <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were not cognitively balanced and were <strong>of</strong>ten irrelevantand based <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory, not practice. Tasks <strong>of</strong>ten did not have clear instructi<strong>on</strong>s andwere inaccurately marked. Practical Investigati<strong>on</strong>s were not properly planned andwere not spread across cognitive levels. There was over-reliance <strong>on</strong> previous questi<strong>on</strong> papers, which were being used overand over again. This practice deprives teachers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> opportunity to develop <strong>the</strong>irown creativity. Rubrics were not used correctly, resulting in generalised marking. Inappropriate andoutdated rubrics were also in use at some schools. Vague and subjective criteriawere <strong>of</strong>ten seen. This problem is also observed during marking at marking centreswhere candidates are disadvantaged by markers not being able to use rubrics. Teachers’ subject knowledge was <strong>of</strong>ten inadequate. The Physical Educati<strong>on</strong> Task (PET) was generally inappropriately assessed.6 RECOMMENDATIONS In future <strong>the</strong> DBE should provide <strong>Umalusi</strong> external moderators with copies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>completed moderati<strong>on</strong> tool. This would enable <strong>Umalusi</strong> external moderators to seehow <strong>the</strong> criteria had been interpreted. All moderati<strong>on</strong> should be thorough and developmental and should provide detailedfeedback to improve practice. Moderati<strong>on</strong> has to include qualitative issues,o<strong>the</strong>rwise it is merely verificati<strong>on</strong> or m<strong>on</strong>itoring. The difference between m<strong>on</strong>itoring and moderati<strong>on</strong> should be stressed, asmoderati<strong>on</strong> should have a qualitative comp<strong>on</strong>ent and not focus <strong>on</strong> compliance<strong>on</strong>ly. To this end an appropriate moderati<strong>on</strong> instrument should be designed andused.22
Teachers should be trained and encouraged to design <strong>the</strong>ir own assessment tasks inline with and similar to <strong>the</strong> standards set for <strong>the</strong> final examinati<strong>on</strong>. This would giveteachers valuable exposure. Accordingly, <strong>the</strong>y need to be orientated <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> variousforms <strong>of</strong> assessment, especially extended writing, and <strong>the</strong> proper administrati<strong>on</strong> anduse <strong>of</strong> a rubric for this secti<strong>on</strong>. The prescribed cognitive weightings should be adhered to and <strong>the</strong> inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>higher-order questi<strong>on</strong>s should be encouraged. This will ensure that learners <strong>of</strong>different capabilities are accommodated. Tasks such as projects should be designed in such a way that <strong>the</strong>y cover a range <strong>of</strong>assessment standards. When designing tasks, educators should c<strong>on</strong>sult <strong>the</strong> relevantpolicies. Over-reliance <strong>on</strong> previous questi<strong>on</strong> papers should be discouraged as it compromises<strong>the</strong> reliability <strong>of</strong> assessment tasks. Previous questi<strong>on</strong> papers should simply be used asa framework or model to develop new tasks for a particular year. Schools could worktoge<strong>the</strong>r to produce good, standardised tasks. Teachers should be trained in <strong>the</strong> use and interpretati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> rubrics. Regular in-servicetraining <strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent should take place to ensure that teachers are au fait with <strong>the</strong>subject matter. The PET mark compromises <strong>the</strong> au<strong>the</strong>nticity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Life Orientati<strong>on</strong> final mark.Workshops need to be held to bring PET up to standard, while educators needguidance <strong>on</strong> how to assess PET. Assessment tools should be developed according to<strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> task and <strong>the</strong> tools should be quality assured at both district andprovincial levels.PHASE 2:FINAL TERM MODERATIONPART 1:VERIFICATION OF EDUCATOR FILES6.1 SIZE OF THE MODERATED SAMPLEGenerally, <strong>the</strong> DBE and <strong>Umalusi</strong> requirements were complied with. Two districts in eachprovince were pre-selected, and <strong>the</strong>se were supposed to be <strong>the</strong> worst-performingdistricts. Subsequently, five schools from each district were selected, and each school hadto present 20 files per subject. It was found that <strong>the</strong> latter requirement was not compliedwith in all instances, as some schools submitted fewer files. However, enough files weresubmitted so that <strong>the</strong> process was not adversely affected. In <strong>on</strong>e or two cases anadditi<strong>on</strong>al school from ano<strong>the</strong>r district was included in <strong>the</strong> sample.23
6.2 QUALITY OF THE DBE MODERATION INSTRUMENTSSome <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> external moderators had seen a blank copy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong>instrument and found it to be <strong>of</strong> good quality, making provisi<strong>on</strong> for all aspects <strong>of</strong>moderati<strong>on</strong>, including <strong>the</strong> qualitative aspect. In most cases, however, no instrument wasavailable, and <strong>the</strong> DBE did not make any <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s available. The result was that mostexternal moderators could not comment <strong>on</strong> this aspect.PART 2:VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERS’ FILES6.3 MODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE actual moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learners’ evidenceThe <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> quality and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learners’ evidence weremixed. It was not clear what <strong>the</strong> DBE moderators’ brief was. From <strong>the</strong> external moderators’point <strong>of</strong> view it appeared that <strong>the</strong> brief was to check <strong>the</strong> accuracy <strong>of</strong> marking <strong>on</strong>ly,as <strong>the</strong> tasks and memoranda <strong>the</strong>mselves were not moderated. In some cases <strong>the</strong>DBE moderators used memoranda c<strong>on</strong>taining errors. No DBE <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were available at <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> sites, and this complicated<strong>Umalusi</strong>’s task. Not all DBE moderators delivered work <strong>of</strong> equal thoroughness, rigour and quality. In some cases <strong>the</strong> DBE moderators did excellent, thorough and pr<strong>of</strong>essi<strong>on</strong>al work,and <strong>the</strong>ir comments were developmental. In some files re-marking had been d<strong>on</strong>e, and in o<strong>the</strong>rs compliance checked. Insome cases <strong>the</strong> re-marking was shadow-marking and comprised m<strong>on</strong>itoring, notmoderating. Some external moderators made menti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> excellent feedback, but <strong>the</strong>se were in<strong>the</strong> minority. Most <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s menti<strong>on</strong>ed few or no comments and no recommendati<strong>on</strong>sin <strong>the</strong> learners’ files. Some had, however, been moderated in detail. Some DBE moderators made mistakes like giving full marks for an incomplete answer(Life Orientati<strong>on</strong>, Gauteng). In Ma<strong>the</strong>matics (Eastern Cape), seven errors were found in <strong>the</strong> memorandum whichhad not been picked up by any <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> previous moderators, not even by <strong>the</strong> DBE. Where <strong>the</strong> DBE moderators had changed marks, and some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> changes weresubstantial, up to 23 marks, <strong>the</strong> changes had not been recorded <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> mark sheets.24
Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksThe findings under this heading were mixed: In some provinces/subjects <strong>the</strong> rubrics and guidelines were in line with <strong>the</strong> NCS policydocuments and <strong>the</strong> marking was good. Some memoranda and rubrics did not always reflect <strong>the</strong> cognitive demands <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>questi<strong>on</strong>. There appeared to be a general lack <strong>of</strong> understanding regarding <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> rubrics.In <strong>on</strong>e school in <strong>the</strong> Free State orals were assessed using a writing rubric. Writingrubrics were used to mark literature. Some rubrics were inadequate and very vague which made c<strong>on</strong>sistency and interraterreliability difficult to achieve. Marking tools were not always applied c<strong>on</strong>sistently. The DBE moderators followed memoranda slavishly without checking or noticing thatsome <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m were incorrect. Markers tended to be too generous. In some subjects marking was very poor (Maths Eastern Cape). A teacher awarded 0for an answer that deserved full marks according to <strong>the</strong> memorandum. At ano<strong>the</strong>r school marks out <strong>of</strong> 35 were recorded out <strong>of</strong> 30 without c<strong>on</strong>versi<strong>on</strong>. In Life Orientati<strong>on</strong>, markers had problems marking secti<strong>on</strong>s B and C <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> comm<strong>on</strong>assessment task (CAT). Still in Life Orientati<strong>on</strong>, PET marks were unrealistically high, with school after schoolawarding 100% for attendance, implying that <strong>the</strong>re were never any absentees,which is ra<strong>the</strong>r unlikely. The marking <strong>of</strong> extended writing was c<strong>on</strong>sistently inc<strong>on</strong>sistent. In many cases marking was weak and nothing distinguished weaker from str<strong>on</strong>gerlearners because all marks were bunched in <strong>the</strong> safe middle range. In Accounting <strong>the</strong>re was little understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> applicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> method marks andpenalisati<strong>on</strong> for inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> foreign items. Research projects were generally very poorly marked.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performance Learners generally coped with lower-order questi<strong>on</strong>s, but struggled with higher-orderquesti<strong>on</strong>s. The ability to express <strong>the</strong>mselves in English was a determining factor in all subjectswhere answers had to be provided in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> essays or paragraphs, such asHistory. Learners could write straightforward informati<strong>on</strong>, but not challenge, criticise ordefend. Marks awarded for tasks and assignments were generally inflated, followed by verypoor marks in <strong>the</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s or tests.25
Performance in Ma<strong>the</strong>matics was disastrously low in most cases. In Fort Beaufort(Eastern Cape) not a single Grade 12 learner in <strong>the</strong> district had passed <strong>the</strong> Juneexaminati<strong>on</strong>. Performance in Life Orientati<strong>on</strong> CAT was also generally low, particularly in secti<strong>on</strong>s Band C. Learners had not yet come to terms with <strong>the</strong> idea that Life Orientati<strong>on</strong> was a subjectthat required study and research, and that <strong>the</strong>y could not expect to do well <strong>on</strong>general knowledge al<strong>on</strong>e. In Accounting, learners struggled with core secti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> work. Learners had difficulty interpreting <strong>the</strong> requirements <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s – explain, describe,discuss, etc. In some cases performance was negatively influenced by poor rubrics. In Life Sciences <strong>the</strong> marks for assignments and tasks were also high, followed by verylow marks in <strong>the</strong> June and September examinati<strong>on</strong>s.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levels In a few cases <strong>the</strong>re was a well-developed moderati<strong>on</strong> system in place in aprovince, or in a subject in a province. There were isolated <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <strong>of</strong> good and effective moderati<strong>on</strong> at district level. The quality <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> varied, from being d<strong>on</strong>e well to n<strong>on</strong>e at all. The entire process <strong>of</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong> needs overhauling. There was very littlemoderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learners’ work to be seen. There was very little formative feedback. There was little evidence that any pre-moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> tasks had taken place. Script moderati<strong>on</strong> was not rigorous enough. In some instances shadow-marking had been d<strong>on</strong>e by an HOD. There were <strong>of</strong>ten compliance checks, but no moderati<strong>on</strong>. At Bizana (Eastern Cape) <strong>the</strong>re was a marked improvement in Ma<strong>the</strong>matics over <strong>the</strong>previous year, mainly due to <strong>the</strong> efforts <strong>of</strong> a c<strong>on</strong>scientious subjectadvisor/moderator.6.4 AREAS OF GOOD PRACTICEPART 1: VERIFICATION OF TEACHERS’ FILES The portfolio system was well organised and managed, and easily accessible. In Life Orientati<strong>on</strong> evidence <strong>of</strong> district support was reflected in all files (KZN). The use <strong>of</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> tasks meant that candidates’ work could be assessedaccurately and schools in <strong>the</strong> area were likely to benefit.26
The use <strong>of</strong> diagnostic analysis sheets gave <strong>the</strong> educator a detailed overview <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>learners’ performance in a test. Some moderati<strong>on</strong> was d<strong>on</strong>e at various levels, that is, school, cluster/district andprovincial. There were completed school moderati<strong>on</strong> forms indicating compliance,as well as a curriculum specialist tool with comments. There was some evidence <strong>of</strong> re-marking and m<strong>on</strong>itoring.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERS’ FILES In some subjects across provinces <strong>the</strong> SBA process was managed appropriately andits scope could be seen. A provincial and internal moderati<strong>on</strong> process was in place in some instances and atsome schools <strong>the</strong>re was evidence <strong>of</strong> re-marking, feedback and m<strong>on</strong>itoring at school,cluster and district levels. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> HODs and subject advisors were providing <strong>the</strong>ir teachers with good andc<strong>on</strong>structive advice The files were fairly complete and well managed, and presented a picture <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>status <strong>of</strong> SBA in <strong>the</strong> province. The SBA policies were available. The attempt to standardise tasks was commended. All required tasks had been completed. The provincial trial examinati<strong>on</strong> papers were generally well developed. Comm<strong>on</strong> papers were written in June as well. District-level moderati<strong>on</strong> had been thorough in some cases. Nati<strong>on</strong>al moderati<strong>on</strong> had been stringent and fully compliant with <strong>the</strong> memorandumin most instances. The standard <strong>of</strong> tasks in Ma<strong>the</strong>matics had improved since <strong>the</strong> previous externalmoderati<strong>on</strong> (Fort Beaufort, Eastern Cape). The September examinati<strong>on</strong>s were generally <strong>of</strong> a good standard and were internallymoderated. There was evidence <strong>of</strong> re-marking/moderati<strong>on</strong> at various levels. The recording <strong>of</strong> marks was generally accurate. There were some innovative ideas for research and surveys.6.5 CHALLENGESPHASE 1: VERIFICATION OF TEACHERS’ FILES C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage was generally <strong>of</strong> a very low standard; assignments were<strong>the</strong>oretical and <strong>of</strong>ten irrelevant. The cognitive level norms according to <strong>the</strong> SAGwere not adhered to. Teachers appeared not to understand <strong>the</strong> SAG and SBA requirements.27
Administered and planned assessment tasks, and even comm<strong>on</strong> tasks and questi<strong>on</strong>papers, lacked evidence <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>. There was evidence <strong>of</strong> over-reliance <strong>on</strong> previous years’ papers. The setting <strong>of</strong> taskslacked creativity and originality. Teachers generally lacked <strong>the</strong> ability to set meaningful tasks and questi<strong>on</strong>s. The marking memoranda and project rubrics were <strong>of</strong>ten vague, inappropriate andoutdated. Rubrics were not used accurately, resulting in generalised marking. Someschools were using outdated rubrics. Recording <strong>of</strong> marks was <strong>of</strong>ten inaccurate or incomplete. There was a lack <strong>of</strong> rigorous internal moderati<strong>on</strong> and c<strong>on</strong>structive feedback. Schoollevelmoderati<strong>on</strong> was rare.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERS’ FILES Some files were presented in a manner that made it difficult for external moderatorsto work through. There was little evidence <strong>of</strong> quality assurance <strong>of</strong> tasks. There was a lack <strong>of</strong> thorough school-level moderati<strong>on</strong>. There no were comments by teachers in <strong>the</strong> learners’ files. The SAG norms for cognitive levels were not always adhered to. Guidance <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> heritage assignment (History) as a provincial initiativeneeds attenti<strong>on</strong>. There appeared to be a lack <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent teaching particularly in Life Orientati<strong>on</strong>.Learners’ c<strong>on</strong>ceptual knowledge and critical thinking were poor. Learners had a poor grasp <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> analysis and <strong>the</strong> provisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>ses. There was a poor grasp <strong>of</strong> basic examinati<strong>on</strong> writing skills. At most schools marking was too lenient. In Life Orientati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was a huge discrepancy between <strong>the</strong> internal assessmentand <strong>the</strong> CAT marks. The PET marks remain suspect and impact negatively <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> au<strong>the</strong>nticity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> finalLife Orientati<strong>on</strong> mark. While in general files have mark sheets, marks were recorded incorrectly. Some files did not have recording sheets. Evidence suggested that very little teaching was occurring in most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> classrooms.Teaching needs a great deal <strong>of</strong> attenti<strong>on</strong>. There was an urgent need for proper m<strong>on</strong>itoring <strong>of</strong> teachers. There appeared to be a critical shortage <strong>of</strong> appropriately qualified teachersespecially in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> Ma<strong>the</strong>matics in <strong>the</strong> Eastern Cape. The two DBE Life Orientati<strong>on</strong> moderators in <strong>the</strong> Eastern Cape appeared to apply twodifferent standards <strong>of</strong> marking.28
6.6 RECOMMENDATIONSPART 1: VERIFICATION OF TEACHERS’ FILES More effort should be made in training teachers <strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent. Workshops should be arranged so that teachers are familiarised with <strong>the</strong> SAG andSBA requirements. Rigorous moderati<strong>on</strong> at all levels should be <strong>the</strong> norm, with <strong>the</strong> focus <strong>on</strong> quality. Although previous questi<strong>on</strong>s and questi<strong>on</strong> papers may be used, <strong>the</strong>y should be usedas models and not rehashed from year to year. There should be a c<strong>on</strong>certed effortto build capacity am<strong>on</strong>g teachers to set tasks and questi<strong>on</strong>s, as this is an essentialskill. There should also be training in <strong>the</strong> design and use <strong>of</strong> rubrics. Meaningful feedback to teachers and learners is very important.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERS’ FILES Efforts should be made to ensure that learners’ files are presentable. Tasks should be moderated and <strong>of</strong> an appropriate quality before <strong>the</strong>y are written. Moderati<strong>on</strong> at school level has to be improved and taken more seriously. HODtraining in moderati<strong>on</strong> processes and practices needs to be c<strong>on</strong>ducted to ensurethat school managers understand <strong>the</strong> processes and <strong>the</strong>ir importance. Themoderati<strong>on</strong> process <strong>of</strong> scripts at school level should be rigorous. Feedback to learners by teachers is crucial to ensure improvement in learning. There should be a focus <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> higher thinking skills so that learnerscan be critical thinkers. The setting <strong>of</strong> good comm<strong>on</strong> tasks is recommended. This should be d<strong>on</strong>e by panels,but should be limited to <strong>on</strong>e task per subject just to provide a standard for <strong>the</strong>teachers. The ultimate goal is to have <strong>the</strong> SBA tasks sets by teachers, provided allteachers are adequately qualified to set such tasks. Teachers need to be guided in <strong>the</strong> setting <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> heritage assignment (History)according to a single key questi<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> applicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> an appropriate rubric toassess <strong>the</strong>se tasks. This also entails guidance <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> proper selecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> au<strong>the</strong>ntic andpers<strong>on</strong>al sources to address <strong>the</strong> key questi<strong>on</strong>. Higher thinking skills must be taught so that learners can solve problems, and criticallyanalyse, evaluate and syn<strong>the</strong>sise informati<strong>on</strong>. Teaching <strong>of</strong> Life Orientati<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent is vital. All assessment tasks should be accompanied by a completed tax<strong>on</strong>omy grid. Teachers should be trained in <strong>the</strong> applicati<strong>on</strong> and development <strong>of</strong> rubrics. Teachers need to be guided in <strong>the</strong> marking <strong>of</strong> graphs and essays.29
Uniformity in approach <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> part <strong>of</strong> DBE moderators is essential. They shouldoperate as a team and be equally stringent.7 CONCLUSIONThe findings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> SBA moderati<strong>on</strong> were quite disappointing, and it is trusted that <strong>the</strong>findings will be taken seriously and remedial acti<strong>on</strong> implemented. There may be severalplausible reas<strong>on</strong>s for <strong>the</strong> poor quality <strong>of</strong> SBA in <strong>the</strong> PEDs and <strong>the</strong> eight subjects that weremoderated, but it is clear that <strong>the</strong>re is too little c<strong>on</strong>trol over <strong>the</strong> work that is d<strong>on</strong>e. The <strong>on</strong>lyway to impose some c<strong>on</strong>trol is through rigorous and regular moderati<strong>on</strong> at all levels, andwhere weaknesses are identified, efforts should be made to remedy <strong>the</strong>m by means <strong>of</strong>training and fur<strong>the</strong>r moderati<strong>on</strong>.(Please refer to Addenda 2A and 2B <strong>on</strong> page 180 for more details <strong>on</strong> this chapter)30
CHAPTER 3APPROVAL OF FINAL MEMORANDA: MEMORANDUMDISCUSSION MEETINGS1 INTRODUCTIONModerati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking memoranda for all 132 questi<strong>on</strong> papers was d<strong>on</strong>e duringmemorandum discussi<strong>on</strong> meetings. Representatives from <strong>the</strong> PEDs (internal moderatorsand/or chief markers) were invited to attend <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>s and were expected to arriveat <strong>the</strong> venues having drawn up <strong>the</strong>ir own memoranda in order to detect any possibleproblems with interpretati<strong>on</strong>. They were also expected to have pre-marked a sample <strong>of</strong>scripts to get a feel for <strong>the</strong> type <strong>of</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>ses candidates were writing.The purpose <strong>of</strong> this moderati<strong>on</strong> was firstly to ensure that <strong>the</strong>re was a comm<strong>on</strong>understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> memorandum. This was essential as marking was decentralised. Thepre-marking <strong>of</strong> scripts and <strong>the</strong> preparati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a memorandum would provide possibleanswers, which had not been included in <strong>the</strong> memorandum, for discussi<strong>on</strong>. C<strong>on</strong>sensushad to be reached without compromising <strong>the</strong> cognitive level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s ormemorandum, and <strong>the</strong> latter was <strong>Umalusi</strong>’s external moderators’ chief task. Chief markersin <strong>the</strong> provinces <strong>the</strong>n had <strong>the</strong> task <strong>of</strong> training markers and ensuring that <strong>the</strong> variousmemoranda were adhered to in order to ensure uniformity <strong>of</strong> standards across <strong>the</strong>provinces. The moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> this process is <strong>the</strong> topic <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> following chapter. Once <strong>the</strong>memoranda had been signed <strong>of</strong>f at <strong>the</strong> memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>the</strong>y had to beadhered to without any changes being made at <strong>the</strong> provincial marking centres.2 SCOPEMemorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s were held for 132 memoranda and <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderatorsattended all <strong>the</strong> meetings for all subjects.Subject Date <strong>of</strong> Examinati<strong>on</strong> Date <strong>of</strong> memorandumdiscussi<strong>on</strong>Accounting 23.10.12 29-30.10.12Afrikaans FAL P1 01.11.12 09.11.12Afrikaans FAL P2 11.11.12 21-22.11.12Afrikaans FAL P3 23.11.12 26-27.11.1231
Subject Date <strong>of</strong> Examinati<strong>on</strong> Date <strong>of</strong> memorandumdiscussi<strong>on</strong>Afrikaans HL P1 11.11.12 9-10.11.12Afrikaans HL P2 15.11.12 21-22.11.12Afrikaans HL P3 23.11.12 26-27.11.12Afrikaans SAL P1 11.11.12Afrikaans SAL P223.11.12Agricultural Management Practices 11.11.12 24-25.11.12Agricultural Sciences P1 11.11.12 8-9.11.12Agricultural Sciences P2 11.11.12 14-15.11.12Agricultural Technology 11.11.12 26.11.12Business Studies 11.11.12 21-22.11.12Civil Technology P1 26.11.12 28.11.12Computer Applicati<strong>on</strong>s Technology P1 24.10.12 02.11.12Computer Applicati<strong>on</strong>s Technology P2 31.10.12 03.11.12C<strong>on</strong>sumer Studies 27.11.12 29.11.12Dance Studies 28.11.12 28-29.11.12Design Studies P1 11.11.12 20-21.11.12Design Studies P2Dramatic Arts 22.10.12Ec<strong>on</strong>omicsElectrical Technology 28.11.12 29.11.12Engineering Graphics & Design P1 12.11.12 23.11.12Engineering Graphics & Design P2 20.11.12 24.11.12English FAL P1English FAL P2 22.10.12 28-29.10.12English FAL P3 26.11.12 28-29.11.12English HL P1 11.12 28-29.11.12English HL P2 08.11.12 16-17.11.12English HL P3 26.11.12 28-29.11.12English SAL P1 & 2 10 & 11.12 13.11.12Geography P1 19.11.12 23.11.12Geography P2 19.11.12 25.11.12History P1 07.11.12 15-16.11.12History P2 16.11.12 21-22.11.12Hospitality Studies 27.11.12 29.11.12Informati<strong>on</strong> Technology P1 11.11.12 30.10.12Informati<strong>on</strong> Technology P2 11.11.12 04.11.12IsiNdebele FAL P1 16.11.12 16.11.12IsiNdebele FAL P2 20.11.12 20.11.12IsiNdebele FAL P3 26.11.12 26.11.1232
Subject Date <strong>of</strong> Examinati<strong>on</strong> Date <strong>of</strong> memorandumdiscussi<strong>on</strong>IsiNdebele HL P1 16.11.12 16.11.12IsiNdebele HL P2 20.11.12 20.11.12IsiNdebele HL P3 26.11.12 26.11.12IsiNdebele SAL P1 16.11.12 16.11.12IsiNdebele SAL P2 26.11.12 26.11.12IsiXhosa FAL P1 07.11.12 14.11.12IsiXhosa FAL P2 14.11.12 20.11.12IsiXhosa FAL P3 22.11.12 25.11.12IsiXhosa HL P1 07.11.12 15.11.12IsiXhosa HL P2 14.11.12 20.11.12IsiXhosa HL P3 22.11.12 26.11.12IsiXhosa SAL P1 11.11.12 14.11.12IsiXhosa SAL P2 11.11.12 19.11.12IsiZulu FAL P1IsiZulu FAL P2IsiZulu FAL P3IsiZulu HL P1 07.11.12 15.11.12IsiZulu HL P2 14.11.12 20.11.12IsiZulu HL P3 22.11.12 26.11.12IsiZulu SAL P1IsiZulu SAL P2Life Sciences P1 Versi<strong>on</strong> 1 09.11.12 19-20.11.12Life Sciences P2 Versi<strong>on</strong> 1 12.11.12 21-22.11.12Life Sciences P1 & P2 Versi<strong>on</strong> 2 09.11.12 19-20.11.1212.11.12 21-22.11.12√ 29. Ma<strong>the</strong>matical Literacy P1 02.11.12 12-13.11.12√ 30. Ma<strong>the</strong>matical Literacy P2 05.11.12 14-15.11.12Ma<strong>the</strong>matics P1 02 11.12 12-15.11.12Ma<strong>the</strong>matics P2 05.11.12Ma<strong>the</strong>matics P3 16-17.11.12Mechanical Technology 16.11.12 22.11.12Music P1 30.10.12 07.11.12Music P2 02.11.12 09.11.12Physical Sciences P1 25.11.12 29.11.12Physical Sciences P2 05.11.12 29.11.12Religi<strong>on</strong> Studies P1Religi<strong>on</strong> Studies P2Sepedi FAL P1 11.11.12 14.11.12Sepedi FAL P2 11.11.12 26.11.1233
Subject Date <strong>of</strong> Examinati<strong>on</strong> Date <strong>of</strong> memorandumdiscussi<strong>on</strong>Sepedi FAL P3 11.11.12 29.11.12Sepedi HL P1 06.11.12 14.11.12Sepedi HL P2 22.11.12 26.11.12Sepedi HL P3 27.11.12 29.11.12Sepedi SAL P1 11.11.12 14.11.12Sepedi SAL P2 11.11.12 26.11.12Sesotho FAL P1 11.11.12 14.11.12Sesotho FAL P2 11.11.12 26.11.12Sesotho FAL P3 27.11.12 29.11.12Sesotho HL P1 06.11.12 14.11.12Sesotho HL P2 14.11.12 26.11.12Sesotho HL P3 23.11.12 26.11.12Sesotho SAL P1 14.11.12Sesotho SAL P2 26.11.12Setswana FAL P1 11.11.12 14.11.12Setswana FAL P2 11.11.12 26.11.12Setswana FAL P3 27.11.12 29.11.12Setswana HL P1 06.11.12 14.11.12Setswana HL P2 22.11.12 26.11.12Setswana HL P3 27.11.12 29.11.12Setswana SAL P1 11.11.12 14.11.12Setswana SAL P2 11.11.12 26.11.12Siswati FAL P1Siswati FAL P2 11.11.12 20.11.12Siswati FAL P3 11.11.12 20.11.12Siswati HL P1 07.11.12 15.11.12Siswati HL P2 11.11.12 15.11.12Siswati HL P3 11.11.12 26.11.12Siswati SAL P1 07.11.12 15.11.12Siswati SAL P2 11.11.12 20.11.12Tourism 17.11.12 25-27.11.12Tshivenda FAL P1 11.11.12 14.11.12Tshivenda FAL P2 11.11.12 26.11.12Tshivenda FAL P3 11.11.12 29.11.12Tshivenda HL P1 11.11.12 14.11.12Tshivenda HL P2 22.11.12 26.11.12Tshivenda HL P3 11.11.12 3.12.12Tshivenda SAL P1 9.11.12 14.11.12Tshivenda SAL P2 11.11.12 26.11.1234
Subject Date <strong>of</strong> Examinati<strong>on</strong> Date <strong>of</strong> memorandumdiscussi<strong>on</strong>Visual Arts P1Visual Arts P2Xits<strong>on</strong>ga FAL P1 11.11.12 14.11.12Xits<strong>on</strong>ga FAL P2 26.11.12Xits<strong>on</strong>ga FAL P3 29.11.12Xits<strong>on</strong>ga HL P1 14.11.12Xits<strong>on</strong>ga HL P2 26.11.12Xits<strong>on</strong>ga HL P3Xits<strong>on</strong>ga SAL P1 14.11.12Xits<strong>on</strong>ga SAL P23 SUMMARY OF RESULTSFor <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> this <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>the</strong> criteria listed in <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> instrument were reducedto four main categories, namely, Process, procedures and attendance; Qualitative issues;Areas/problems that were not appropriately addressed during <strong>the</strong> setting and moderati<strong>on</strong>process; and Comments and Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s.3.1 PROCESS, PROCEDURES AND ATTENDANCEA particular process and procedure has been established over <strong>the</strong> past few years. Theindividual memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s are generally chaired by <strong>the</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al internalmoderator. A senior <strong>of</strong>ficial from <strong>the</strong> DBE attended <strong>the</strong> meeting <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> first day to address<strong>the</strong> internal moderators and chief markers, to remind <strong>the</strong>m <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>meeting, to provide any informati<strong>on</strong> that <strong>the</strong> DBE wished to c<strong>on</strong>vey and, generally, to set<strong>the</strong> t<strong>on</strong>e for <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>s.The discussi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>the</strong>n proceeded. Provincial chief markers/internal moderators submitted<strong>the</strong>ir written <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <strong>on</strong> pre-marking and made a brief verbal presentati<strong>on</strong>. These <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>sformed <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>, as any changes to <strong>the</strong> memoranda depended <strong>on</strong>what <strong>the</strong> provincial representatives had found in <strong>the</strong>ir pre-marked scripts. The discussi<strong>on</strong>followed <strong>the</strong> memorandum questi<strong>on</strong> by questi<strong>on</strong>. A scribe captured all decisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong>computer, which in most cases projected <strong>the</strong> memorandum <strong>on</strong>to a screen so thatevery<strong>on</strong>e could follow what was being d<strong>on</strong>e.35
When <strong>the</strong> process was complete, <strong>the</strong> next step was practice marking and training.Dummy scripts were provided, and each chief marker/internal moderator marked <strong>the</strong>same scripts. The decisi<strong>on</strong>s made and <strong>the</strong> mark allocati<strong>on</strong> were <strong>the</strong>n discussed untilc<strong>on</strong>sensus was reached <strong>on</strong> how to mark every answer. This is becoming an extremelyimportant part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>, because <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> external moderators havealmost all <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed an improvement in marking; an improvement that has been linkeddirectly to <strong>the</strong> training that <strong>the</strong> chief markers and internal moderators have underg<strong>on</strong>e,which has improved <strong>the</strong>ir understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> memorandum and given <strong>the</strong>mc<strong>on</strong>fidence.The task <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> external moderators was mainly to observe and to maintain <strong>the</strong> integrity <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> memorandum, while allowing improvements to it. The smaller <strong>the</strong> group, <strong>the</strong> morelikely <strong>the</strong> external moderator was inclined to become part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>.The following findings were <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed under <strong>the</strong> general heading:Table 3.1: Process, procedures and attendanceFindingFrequency %/132Innovative diagnostic methods were being put in place by <strong>the</strong> DBE to ensure that 2 1,5<strong>the</strong> teaching and assessment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject in <strong>the</strong> PEDs were improved. The use<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Rausch model analysis instrument has been introduced to analyse results.The pre-memo discussi<strong>on</strong> meeting was very valuable. 1 0,8Dummy scripts were prepared for practice marking which <strong>the</strong> delegates could 1 0,8take back to <strong>the</strong> provinces with <strong>the</strong>m (Accounting).The selecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> scripts for practice marking was inappropriate. 1 0,8Subjects for which provincial representatives did not attend <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>. 15 11,4The time between <strong>the</strong> exam and <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong> was too short for premarking.11 8,3The DBE team caused a delay in starting by arriving late/not informing <strong>of</strong> venue. 2 1,5Provincial <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were not handed in (Mpumalanga, English FAL P1), Limpopo, 2 1,5and Free State did not hand in <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s.Internal moderator/chief marker could not attend due to a clash with ano<strong>the</strong>rsubject/paper.8 6,1As can be seen from <strong>the</strong> above, few problems were experienced. The major problemsthat emerged were <strong>the</strong> provincial internal moderators and chief markers who did notattend <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>s. The provinces involved are named in Addendum 3. This wasvery serious as it was bound to have major repercussi<strong>on</strong>s for <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> marking in <strong>the</strong>provinces. Various reas<strong>on</strong>s were provided for n<strong>on</strong>-attendance. In some cases <strong>the</strong> PDEs didnot make it possible for representatives to attend for financial reas<strong>on</strong>s, and in o<strong>the</strong>rs,notably <strong>the</strong> languages, various questi<strong>on</strong> papers were discussed in <strong>the</strong> same time slot, and36
as <strong>the</strong>y were sometimes placed at different venues, <strong>the</strong> representatives had to choosewhich memo discussi<strong>on</strong> to attend.The sec<strong>on</strong>d problem was that <strong>the</strong> time between <strong>the</strong> writing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong>memo discussi<strong>on</strong> was too short, and pre-marking could not be d<strong>on</strong>e. Sometimes <strong>the</strong>discussi<strong>on</strong> was <strong>the</strong> very next day. This prevented provincial chief markers and internalmoderators from meeting <strong>the</strong>ir obligati<strong>on</strong>s and had a serious impact <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>s asdelegates had not had any time to collect scripts for pre-marking, and discussi<strong>on</strong> was <strong>of</strong>necessity somewhat <strong>the</strong>oretical.3.2 QUALITATIVE ISSUESIn this secti<strong>on</strong> it would seem that nearly all memoranda underwent some changes. Therewere a few in which incorrect answers were identified that had to be corrected, such asspelling mistakes, but by far <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> changes were <strong>the</strong> additi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> alternativeanswers to questi<strong>on</strong>s. In fact, <strong>the</strong>se were not really changes, but ra<strong>the</strong>r extensi<strong>on</strong>s to refine<strong>the</strong> memorandum and to accommodate o<strong>the</strong>r views and possible interpretati<strong>on</strong>s.All changes were substantiated and approved under <strong>the</strong> watchful eye <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong>moderators, who c<strong>on</strong>tributed to <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>s when required and sometimes had to takea decisi<strong>on</strong> when c<strong>on</strong>sensus could not be reached. They also had to ensure that <strong>the</strong>changes would not have an impact <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers andmemoranda.Over and above <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> changes to <strong>the</strong> memoranda, it should be noted that allchanges were substantiated and approved, that <strong>the</strong>re was no impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitivelevels <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers, and that <strong>the</strong> changes served to simplify and refine <strong>the</strong>memorandum. The following findings were gleaned from <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> memorandumdiscussi<strong>on</strong>s.Table 3.2: Qualitative issuesFinding Frequency/132 %Too many textbooks in use in schools complicated <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>s;<strong>the</strong>re were too many opti<strong>on</strong>s.A questi<strong>on</strong> was difficult (comprehensi<strong>on</strong> test) and some candidates couldnot finish.There was a plea not to engage in whole-paper marking as thisdisadvantaged some candidates.Incorrect Afrikaans translati<strong>on</strong>s resulted in changes to <strong>the</strong> memorandum toaccommodate <strong>the</strong> disadvantaged candidates.1 0,81 0,82 1,52 1,537
One editorial error invalidated a questi<strong>on</strong> and compensati<strong>on</strong> had to be 1 0,8built in.The rubrics were extensively edited (Sesotho HL). 1 0,8The marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> summary was changed <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> instructi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE 1 0,8(Tshivenda HL).There was a typing error in a poem, and a word that differed in three 1 0,8different publicati<strong>on</strong>s used in <strong>the</strong> schools (Tshivenda HL).Learners did not prepare for <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s (Xits<strong>on</strong>ga). 1 0,8As can be seen, <strong>the</strong>re were no major problems and <strong>the</strong> few remarks above that weregleaned from <strong>the</strong> external moderators <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s serve to highlight some aspects withoutpointing to major problems.The third area <strong>on</strong> which external moderators <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed was <strong>the</strong> followingTable 3.3: Areas/problems that were not appropriately addressed during <strong>the</strong> settingand moderati<strong>on</strong> processFindingFrequency/132More alternatives should have been included. 1 0,8Some questi<strong>on</strong>s could have been formulated more carefully to avoid so 2 1,5many alternatives.The marking grid needed clarificati<strong>on</strong>. 1 0,8Translati<strong>on</strong> into Afrikaans caused problems. 2 1,5Simpler language should be used. 1 0,8A prescribed textbook was unavailable. 1 0,8Aligning essay questi<strong>on</strong>s with <strong>the</strong> alternative answers was a problem. 1 0,8A procedure should be developed to deal with different versi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong>2 1,5questi<strong>on</strong> papers (Informati<strong>on</strong> Technology [IT]).The setting <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers should start earlier. 2 1,5Better provisi<strong>on</strong> should be made for differently-abled pers<strong>on</strong>s. Blind2 1,5candidates could not interpret graphics.Guidelines are required <strong>on</strong> how to deal with a candidate’s corrupted CD. 2 1,5Printing in <strong>the</strong> provinces caused problems with graphics. 8 6,1Inexplicable changes were made to provincial questi<strong>on</strong> papers. Were <strong>the</strong>se 1 0,8being tampered with by local editors?Markers should be properly skilled and knowledgeable regarding <strong>the</strong> 1 0,8subject c<strong>on</strong>tent.If chief markers and internal moderators do not attend <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong> 2 1,5<strong>the</strong>y should not be in charge <strong>of</strong> marking.The examinati<strong>on</strong> panel should be enlarged (IT). 1 0,8Provinces do not take SAL seriously and do not send representatives. 1 0,8%38
FindingFrequency/132Some unusual terminology appeared in <strong>the</strong> papers (editing?). 1 0,8The awarding <strong>of</strong> language marks in <strong>the</strong> summary should be rec<strong>on</strong>sidered. 1 0,8%Comments and recommendati<strong>on</strong>sThe comments and recommendati<strong>on</strong>s are captured in detail in Addendum 3 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> maintechnical <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>. The most important/comm<strong>on</strong> were <strong>the</strong> following: The pre-discussi<strong>on</strong> meetings are extremely useful and streamlined <strong>the</strong> following days’discussi<strong>on</strong>s. Unfortunately <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong> did not take place in all subjects, <strong>of</strong>tenbecause travel arrangements do not take <strong>the</strong>se meetings into account and peoplearrive late or do not turn up at all. Return flights are also arranged so early thatpeople have to leave before <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>. The SAG (first additi<strong>on</strong>al languages) guidelines <strong>on</strong> summary marking should berec<strong>on</strong>sidered. The programme for memo discussi<strong>on</strong> should take into account when <strong>the</strong> paperswere written to avoid a situati<strong>on</strong> where it is impossible to collect scripts and pre-mark<strong>the</strong>m in time for <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>. Memo discussi<strong>on</strong>s are a costly exercise, and <strong>the</strong>yshould be planned so as to provide <strong>the</strong> best outcomes. The marking rubrics for languages need to be reviewed. One cannot have a chief marker who does not know <strong>the</strong> subject (Dance). <strong>Umalusi</strong> should make <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marking available to chiefmarkers and internal moderators to enable <strong>the</strong>m to learn from mistakes. The DBE should act strictly against provinces that do not send chief markers andinternal moderators to memo discussi<strong>on</strong>s. Such individuals should not be allowed tosupervise <strong>the</strong> marking, and <strong>of</strong>ficials from those provinces that did attend shouldreplace <strong>the</strong>m, or <strong>the</strong> marking should be allocated to ano<strong>the</strong>r province. There is great unhappiness in <strong>the</strong> Business Studies team. A senior DBE <strong>of</strong>ficial joined<strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong> and addressed <strong>the</strong> team and provincial representatives. Duringthis address, she severely criticised <strong>the</strong> 2011 paper for being too easy. C<strong>on</strong>sequently,<strong>the</strong> team felt that it had been unfairly criticised, as <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>of</strong> too lenient and poormarking had not been c<strong>on</strong>sidered. The relati<strong>on</strong>ship between <strong>the</strong> DBE and this teamshould be addressed. Additi<strong>on</strong>al s<strong>of</strong>tware programs are required at <strong>the</strong> DBE for setting ComputerApplicati<strong>on</strong>s Technology questi<strong>on</strong> papers in order to accommodate <strong>the</strong> variety <strong>of</strong>s<strong>of</strong>tware programs in use at schools. Printing in <strong>the</strong> provinces has led to problems, mainly with graphics. The problem hadserious c<strong>on</strong>sequences in Mpumalanga where part <strong>of</strong> a diagram inexplicablydisappeared from <strong>the</strong> Ma<strong>the</strong>matics P2 questi<strong>on</strong> paper, and 11 marks had to becompensated for in some way.39
4 AREAS OF GOOD PRACTICE The memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s presented an opportunity for provincial chief markersand internal moderators to ir<strong>on</strong> out any problems that might arise in respect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>memorandum, and encouraged <strong>the</strong>m to take ownership <strong>of</strong> and resp<strong>on</strong>sibility for <strong>the</strong>memoranda. The arrangements were generally good and most representatives could attendwithout major problems. The practice marking and training incorporated in <strong>the</strong> memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s arebeginning to bear fruit and many external moderators <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed an improvement in<strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> marking.5 CHALLENGES The programme for memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s did not take <strong>the</strong> provincialrepresentatives’ preparati<strong>on</strong> for <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>s into account: some representativesarrived without having seen a single script or memorandum. This had a very negativeimpact <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>s and meant that optimal benefit was not derived from <strong>the</strong>undoubtedly expensive exercise. Some provincial representatives were sent for <strong>the</strong> shortest possible time, whichprevented <strong>the</strong>m from attending pre-memo discussi<strong>on</strong> meetings and forced <strong>the</strong>m toleave before <strong>the</strong> training had been completed. Provincial <strong>of</strong>ficials were also unwilling to make a range <strong>of</strong> scripts (copies) available t<strong>of</strong>acilitate <strong>the</strong> pre-marking and memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s. It is important to access arange <strong>of</strong> scripts representing various levels <strong>of</strong> performance; however, representatives<strong>of</strong>ten had to make do with a few scripts from <strong>on</strong>e centre, which did not <strong>of</strong>fer a goodbasis from which to launch meaningful discussi<strong>on</strong>s. Memo discussi<strong>on</strong> meetings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> HL, FAL and SAL were held at <strong>the</strong> same time,causing problems for <strong>the</strong> chief markers, internal moderators and even some <strong>Umalusi</strong>external moderators who are <strong>of</strong>ten resp<strong>on</strong>sible for <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong>selevel. Equipment such as printers and projectors were not always available at <strong>the</strong> venuesand this led to frustrating delays. Printing in <strong>the</strong> provinces was not always up to <strong>the</strong> required standard, particularlyregarding <strong>the</strong> printing <strong>of</strong> visuals and graphics. This disadvantaged some candidates.40
6 RECOMMENDATIONSAs much time as possible should be planned between <strong>the</strong> writing <strong>of</strong> a questi<strong>on</strong> paper and<strong>the</strong> memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>.Provinces should acknowledge <strong>the</strong> importance and qualitative impact <strong>of</strong> knowledgeablechief markers and internal moderators, and should <strong>the</strong>refore budget time and m<strong>on</strong>ey for<strong>the</strong>m to attend <strong>the</strong> memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s from beginning to end.The provisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> copies <strong>of</strong> a memorandum and a range <strong>of</strong> scripts to chief markers andinternal moderators immediately after <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s should be written into <strong>the</strong>examinati<strong>on</strong> guidelines for provinces.The programme for <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> HL, FAL and SAL questi<strong>on</strong> papers shouldbe designed in such a way that it allows <strong>the</strong> chief markers, internal moderators andexternal moderators to be able to attend all <strong>the</strong> meetings.Provisi<strong>on</strong> should be made for <strong>the</strong> necessary equipment at <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong> venues.Printing in <strong>the</strong> provinces should satisfy <strong>the</strong> norms and standards for printing, and <strong>the</strong>printers should be subjected to m<strong>on</strong>itoring and quality c<strong>on</strong>trol.7 CONCLUSIONMemorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s have come a l<strong>on</strong>g way and have become extremely usefulinteractive exercises serving to clarify memoranda to <strong>the</strong> advantage <strong>of</strong> candidates. Thepractice marking/training that has now become a part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>has proved to be extremely valuable and has brought about some improvement in <strong>the</strong>quality <strong>of</strong> marking throughout <strong>the</strong> country.Having said this, <strong>the</strong> challenges highlighted above indicate that <strong>the</strong>re is definitely still roomfor improvement.(Please refer to Addenda 3 <strong>on</strong> page 274 for more details <strong>on</strong> this chapter)41
CHAPTER 4VERIFICATION OF MARKING1 INTRODUCTIONMarking is <strong>the</strong> culminati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> process. Verificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marking is <strong>the</strong>refore<strong>the</strong> final step in <strong>the</strong> quality assurance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> final examinati<strong>on</strong> for <strong>the</strong> NSC. If <strong>the</strong> marking isnot properly c<strong>on</strong>trolled and carried out, it has <strong>the</strong> potential to nullify all <strong>the</strong> effort andexpense that has g<strong>on</strong>e into <strong>the</strong> preparati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a credible examinati<strong>on</strong>.In 2012, <strong>Umalusi</strong> followed a different approach to <strong>the</strong> verificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marking and <strong>on</strong> alarger scale than in previous years: a combinati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>-site and centralised verificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>marking. From 5–7 December 2012, a substantial amount <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>-site verificati<strong>on</strong> was d<strong>on</strong>e.This was a very valuable exercise as <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>on</strong>e hand it exposed external moderators to<strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s at <strong>the</strong> coal-face, so to speak, and <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, it created anopportunity for problems and misunderstandings to be addressed at <strong>the</strong> very beginning <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> marking sessi<strong>on</strong>. The external moderators could provide guidance <strong>on</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> to<strong>the</strong> internal moderators and chief markers, and interact with individual markers to clarifyany issues that appeared to be causing problems.Extensive centralised verificati<strong>on</strong> followed directly after <strong>the</strong> <strong>on</strong>-site verificati<strong>on</strong> from 8 to 11December 2012. This exercise took place at <strong>Umalusi</strong>’s <strong>of</strong>fices in Pretoria. Certain subjectswere identified, and provinces were required to send in 20 scripts per questi<strong>on</strong> paper,selected according to achievement (poor, average and good performance), and <strong>the</strong>relevant memorandum. The two forms <strong>of</strong> verificati<strong>on</strong> eventually presented a reliablepicture <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> marking in <strong>the</strong> country.2 SCOPEReports were submitted by <strong>Umalusi</strong>’s external moderators <strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>on</strong>-site andcentralised moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marking.42
2.1 ON-SITE VERIFICATIONFive provinces were selected for <strong>on</strong>-site verificati<strong>on</strong> in 13 subjects from 5–7 December2012:Eastern CapeGautengKwaZulu-NatalLimpopoNor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeProvincesSubjectsAccountingAfrikaans FALBusiness StudiesEnglish FALAgricultural SciencesBusiness StudiesAccountingAccountingEc<strong>on</strong>omicsEnglish FALAccountingEnglish HLGeographyAccountingHistoryLife Sciences (Versi<strong>on</strong>s 1 & 2)Ma<strong>the</strong>matical LiteracyMa<strong>the</strong>matics (Only P1 & P2)Physical SciencesThe details <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>on</strong>-site verificati<strong>on</strong> are captured in Addendum 4A at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> thisdocument, and a summary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> findings are presented below.2.2 CENTRALISED VERIFICATION OF MARKINGCentralised verificati<strong>on</strong> was held at <strong>Umalusi</strong> between Saturday 8 December and Tuesday11 December. The submissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> scripts for <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marking (gateway subjectsand four o<strong>the</strong>rs) was planned as follows:Eastern CapeFree StateProvincesGateway and o<strong>the</strong>r subjectsComputer Applicati<strong>on</strong>s TechnologyC<strong>on</strong>sumer StudiesEngineering Graphics & DesignTourismAccounting43
GautengKwaZulu-NatalLimpopoMpumalangaNor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeNorth WestWestern CapeProvincesGateway and o<strong>the</strong>r subjectsAfrikaans FALAgricultural ScienceBusiness StudiesComputer Applicati<strong>on</strong>s TechnologyC<strong>on</strong>sumer StudiesEngineering Graphics & DesignTourismComputer Applicati<strong>on</strong>s TechnologyC<strong>on</strong>sumer StudiesEngineering Graphics & DesignTourismComputer Applicati<strong>on</strong>s TechnologyC<strong>on</strong>sumer StudiesEngineering Graphics & DesignTourismComputer Applicati<strong>on</strong>s TechnologyC<strong>on</strong>sumer StudiesEngineering Graphics & DesignTourismAccountingEc<strong>on</strong>omicsComputer Applicati<strong>on</strong>s TechnologyC<strong>on</strong>sumer StudiesEngineering Graphics & DesignEnglish FALEnglish HLTourismComputer Applicati<strong>on</strong>s TechnologyC<strong>on</strong>sumer StudiesEngineering Graphics & DesignTourismAccountingComputer Applicati<strong>on</strong>s TechnologyGeographyHistoryLife SciencesAccountingComputer Applicati<strong>on</strong>s TechnologyC<strong>on</strong>sumer StudiesEngineering Graphics & DesignMa<strong>the</strong>matical LiteracyMa<strong>the</strong>matics (P1 & P2)Physical SciencesTourism44
Scripts for all African Languages also had to be submitted for verificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marking.The detailed informati<strong>on</strong> is captured in Addendum 4 under <strong>the</strong> criteria used in <strong>the</strong>verificati<strong>on</strong> instrument. Summaries <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most important findings are provided below.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS3.1 ADHERENCE TO MARKING MEMORANDUMIt was found that markers had adhered to <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum throughout. This canbe attributed at least in part to <strong>the</strong> fact that training forms a major part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> variousmemorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s. This was menti<strong>on</strong>ed by <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> external moderators. At<strong>the</strong> memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s alternatives were added to accommodate different viewsand insights. The <strong>on</strong>ly problem was that some markers had difficulty recognising correctanswers phrased differently to <strong>the</strong> answer in <strong>the</strong> memorandum.3.2 CONSISTENCY AND ACCURACYMarking was generally accurate, although markers tended to inflate essay marks. This wassomething that internal moderators and chief markers had to watch. The examinati<strong>on</strong>assistants played an important role in assuring <strong>the</strong> accuracy <strong>of</strong> totalling, transferring andrecording marks. Based <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> sample <strong>of</strong> scripts verified it can be c<strong>on</strong>cluded thatmemoranda were not changed at <strong>the</strong> marking centres.3.3 QUALITY AND STANDARD OF MARKINGThe quality <strong>of</strong> marking varied from fair to excellent. Questi<strong>on</strong>-by-questi<strong>on</strong> marking helpedto maintain c<strong>on</strong>sistency. Verificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marking revealed a few serious discrepancies like<strong>the</strong> <strong>on</strong>es menti<strong>on</strong>ed above where some markers were unable to recognise alternativeresp<strong>on</strong>ses provided by candidates.3.4 INTERNAL MODERATIONWhere <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> marking was fair and not excellent, errors were picked up by <strong>the</strong>internal moderators, and markers were guided to better understanding. Improvement inmarking was <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed after initial problems had been dealt with.45
3.5 UNFAIR QUESTIONSThere were no unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s as <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers had been competently moderated,and <strong>the</strong> memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s had taken care <strong>of</strong> any possible ambiguities.3.6 CANDIDATES’ PERFORMANCEThe spread <strong>of</strong> marks c<strong>on</strong>firmed that <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers were fair, but it was also clearthat many candidates could not cope with <strong>the</strong> higher-order questi<strong>on</strong>s. This can be tracedto inadequate preparati<strong>on</strong> throughout <strong>the</strong> year, as it was clear that SBA does not adhereto <strong>the</strong> required cognitive levels.3.7 FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONSMost <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> findings were positive, and suggesti<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>tained mostly injuncti<strong>on</strong>s for chiefmarkers and internal moderators to c<strong>on</strong>tinue to maintain standards.3.8 ADJUSTMENT OF MARKSWith very few excepti<strong>on</strong>s moderators proposed that raw marks be accepted, as <strong>the</strong>rewas no evidence that questi<strong>on</strong> papers were unfair. In Life Sciences Paper 2, a smallupward adjustment was proposed due to <strong>the</strong> prep<strong>on</strong>derance <strong>of</strong> paragraph-typequesti<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> paper that might have disadvantaged some candidates.There was a problem with Sesotho HL P1, where in some way <strong>the</strong> alternatives agreed up<strong>on</strong>at <strong>the</strong> memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong> had not been captured in <strong>the</strong> memorandum that wassent to <strong>the</strong> marking centres. This led to some c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong> until <strong>the</strong> improved memorandumhad been furnished.4 AREAS OF GOOD PRACTICE The training <strong>of</strong> chief markers and internal moderators at memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s ishaving a positive impact <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking <strong>of</strong> scripts. From <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> external moderators <strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>-site verificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marking, it isclear that a fair amount <strong>of</strong> time was being spent <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> training <strong>of</strong> markers.46
5 CHALLENGES Markers did not always display <strong>the</strong> requisite competence for marking, or <strong>the</strong> in-depthknowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject required to recognise answers expressed in different words.This applied mainly to open-ended questi<strong>on</strong>s and paragraph/essay questi<strong>on</strong>s. Markers still had difficulty working with rubrics, and tended to inflate marks because<strong>the</strong>y did not understand <strong>the</strong> descriptors.6 RECOMMENDATIONS The appointment <strong>of</strong> markers is extremely important, and it is imperative that PEDsshould ensure that <strong>the</strong> markers <strong>the</strong>y appoint have <strong>the</strong> required competence andsubject knowledge to be able to recognise correct answers expressed in differentwords. In light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> point made above, <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> competency tests would assist inensuring that suitable markers are appointed. Teachers in general should be trained to use rubrics, as it was not <strong>on</strong>ly at <strong>the</strong> markingcentres that <strong>the</strong>y experienced problems, but also in <strong>the</strong>ir assessment <strong>of</strong> learners’ testsand tasks during <strong>the</strong> year. Training <strong>of</strong> markers, chief markers and internal moderators should be a priority toensure a c<strong>on</strong>tinuously improving corps <strong>of</strong> markers.7 CONCLUSIONIt is evident that progress has been made over <strong>the</strong> years. There is, however, much room forimprovement in <strong>the</strong> selecti<strong>on</strong> and training <strong>of</strong> markers and chief markers. Competencytests will go a l<strong>on</strong>g way in <strong>the</strong> identificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> competent and suitable markers.(Please refer to Addenda 4 <strong>on</strong> page 301 for more details <strong>on</strong> this chapter)47
CHAPTER 5MONITORING OF THE CONDUCT OF EXAMINATIONS1 INTRODUCTION<strong>Umalusi</strong> undertook a series <strong>of</strong> external moderati<strong>on</strong> and m<strong>on</strong>itoring exercises to assess <strong>the</strong>writing phase <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> administrati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking centres.The purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> external m<strong>on</strong>itoring <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> writing phase was not <strong>on</strong>ly to identify goodpractice, but also to identify challenges encountered in <strong>the</strong> writing and marking phase <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>, as identified by <strong>Umalusi</strong> m<strong>on</strong>itors. Areas for improvement are suggested,based <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> findings and recommendati<strong>on</strong>s that are made. This was quite an extensiveoperati<strong>on</strong>, and external m<strong>on</strong>itors were deployed at examinati<strong>on</strong> centres and markingcentres throughout <strong>the</strong> provinces.2 SCOPETable 5.1: Examinati<strong>on</strong> (writing) centresDates Province No. <strong>of</strong> m<strong>on</strong>itors No. <strong>of</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> centres22.10.12 - 23.11.12 Eastern Cape 3 2124.10.12 – 19.11.12 Free State 5 2122.10.12 – 28.11.12 Gauteng 5 2323.10.12 – 23.11.12 KwaZulu-Natal 4 1822.10.12 – 22.11.12 Limpopo 4 27Mpumalanga 4 1822.10.12 – 27.11.12 Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape 4 4023.10.12 – 23.11.12 North West 3 1422.10.12 – 24.11.12 Western Cape 4 25TOTAL 9 36 20748
Table 5.2: Marking centresDates Province No. <strong>of</strong> m<strong>on</strong>itors No. <strong>of</strong> marking centres05.12.12 – 07.12.12 Eastern Cape 3 1103.12.12 – 06.12.12 Free State 5 1426.11.12 – 11.12.12 Gauteng 5 1002.12.12 – 06.12.12 KwaZulu-Natal 4 1201.12.12 – 07.12.12 Limpopo 4 14Mpumalanga 4 1404.12.12 – 13.12.12 Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape 3 303.12.12 – 06.12.12 North West 3 805.12.12 – 14.12.12 Western Cape 1 1TOTAL 9 32 87M<strong>on</strong>itors were deployed to <strong>the</strong> above centres with m<strong>on</strong>itoring instruments, and <strong>the</strong>essence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s has been captured in Addendum 5, with a summary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>findings provided below.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS3.1 EXAMINATION CENTRESIn general <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> centres were well run. Very few weaknesses were noted. In <strong>the</strong>Western Cape examinati<strong>on</strong> timetables were prominently displayed.General management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> In <strong>the</strong> Free State <strong>the</strong>re were some centres where <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers were kept insteel cabinets in <strong>the</strong> admin block, which was not secure enough. In additi<strong>on</strong>, at afew centres too many people had access to <strong>the</strong> storage space where questi<strong>on</strong>papers were kept, for example <strong>the</strong> chief invigilator and admin staff. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>centres did not have clear c<strong>on</strong>tingency plans in place. In Gauteng not all centrescould produce letters <strong>of</strong> appointment for <strong>the</strong> chief invigilators. At <strong>on</strong>e centre inKwaZulu-Natal <strong>the</strong>re was no access c<strong>on</strong>trol, and in general <strong>the</strong>re were no clearc<strong>on</strong>tingency plans. In Limpopo <strong>the</strong> plastic satchels for packaging scripts had not been received in <strong>the</strong>first week <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>, and <strong>the</strong> centres also failed to have c<strong>on</strong>tingency plansin place. Few <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> centres across <strong>the</strong> country had c<strong>on</strong>tingency plans in place.In <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape and North West security was tight, and c<strong>on</strong>tingency plans were49
in place at most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> centres in <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape. These plans werenot available, however, at most North West centres. All chief invigilators in <strong>the</strong> Western Cape were trained in September and an updatedmanual was in use across <strong>the</strong> province. In <strong>the</strong> Eastern Cape, Limpopo, KZN andMpumalanga, questi<strong>on</strong> papers were delivered daily to avoid having questi<strong>on</strong> papersin <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> centres. These were collected and delivered at “nodal points”.The examinati<strong>on</strong> room – general At some centres in <strong>the</strong> Free State, Gauteng and KZN, <strong>the</strong> locati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>venues were not indicated. At two centres in <strong>the</strong> Free State high noise levels at <strong>the</strong>end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school day were <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed, while several centres did not display <strong>the</strong> start–finish times and centre numbers. In Limpopo <strong>the</strong>re was a very bad smell in <strong>on</strong>eexaminati<strong>on</strong> room owing to something in <strong>the</strong> ro<strong>of</strong>. There was a lack <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sistency in <strong>the</strong> identificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> candidates in <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rnCape. In <strong>the</strong> Western Cape, <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> was very well run, with noticesindicating that an examinati<strong>on</strong> was in progress prominently displayed. Most centreswere in order. In <strong>on</strong>e Eastern Cape school <strong>the</strong> clock was very small.The examinati<strong>on</strong> room – seating <strong>of</strong> candidates At <strong>on</strong>e school in KZN <strong>the</strong> computers were far too close toge<strong>the</strong>r, and <strong>the</strong> groupshould have written in two sessi<strong>on</strong>s for greater security. No o<strong>the</strong>r problems were<str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed. In some rural areas <strong>of</strong> North West <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> rooms were in a state <strong>of</strong> disrepairand not c<strong>on</strong>ducive to <strong>the</strong> writing <strong>of</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s. Seating was generally in order, with candidates arranged numerically oralphabetically.Before commencement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> In <strong>the</strong> Free State IDs and permit letters were not checked at every centre, probablybecause <strong>the</strong> candidates were known to <strong>the</strong> invigilators. In <strong>the</strong> Western Cape IDswere c<strong>on</strong>sistently checked. There was also a fixed policy for cell ph<strong>on</strong>es. In Gauteng <strong>the</strong> issue <strong>of</strong> cell ph<strong>on</strong>es was treated differently at various schools. At many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> schools In Limpopo, Mpumalanga and KZN, <strong>the</strong> candidates did notcheck whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y had been given <strong>the</strong> right questi<strong>on</strong> papers, and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>papers were not checked to make sure that <strong>the</strong>re were no blank pages or pagesmissing. Pre-examinati<strong>on</strong> procedures were adhered to, although <strong>the</strong> standardisati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> someprocedures across <strong>the</strong> country was required, for example <strong>the</strong> policy regarding cellph<strong>on</strong>es and <strong>the</strong> identificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> candidates.50
Writing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> In <strong>the</strong> Free State <strong>the</strong> reading time before commencement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> wasnot c<strong>on</strong>sistent, and varied from 5 to 23 minutes. At some centres daily <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s werenot submitted, and at o<strong>the</strong>rs irregularity registers were not kept. In Gauteng <strong>the</strong>re appeared to be some technical irregularities that were not<str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed, pending a meeting <strong>on</strong> 18.12.2012, when an electr<strong>on</strong>ic <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> would besubmitted to <strong>Umalusi</strong>.Packaging and transmissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> answer scriptsIn <strong>the</strong> Free State <strong>the</strong>re appeared to be no c<strong>on</strong>sistency in <strong>the</strong> handling <strong>of</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>stati<strong>on</strong>ery. No o<strong>the</strong>r provinces <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed any problems.M<strong>on</strong>itoringAt some examinati<strong>on</strong> centres in <strong>the</strong> Free State <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence that any provincialm<strong>on</strong>itoring had taken place. In <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape, however, <strong>the</strong>re were several visits bym<strong>on</strong>itors at <strong>the</strong> various schools. In <strong>the</strong> Western Cape m<strong>on</strong>itoring was more regular in someareas than in o<strong>the</strong>rs.3.2 MARKING CENTRESPlanning for markingPlanning was appropriate and detailed in all provinces. In <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape, at all threecentres, <strong>the</strong> marking plan was set out in a comprehensive “Markers Guide” hand-out.Marking centre Most marking centres fulfilled <strong>the</strong> requirements. In Mpumalanga, <strong>on</strong>e centre, Dr CNMahlangu, was not suitable, as it had stood unused for some time, and taps andgeysers were a problem. All centres in North West were well equipped and hadexcellent marking centre plans in place. In <strong>the</strong> Western Cape marking was centralised at <strong>on</strong>e point, a university campus,which was an appropriate venue. Very good communicati<strong>on</strong> facilities were available in almost all <strong>the</strong> centres visited,for example fax, copying and printing machines and teleph<strong>on</strong>es.3.3 SECURITYIn most provinces security was appropriate. In KZN it was <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed that <strong>the</strong>re was notstringent enough access c<strong>on</strong>trol at <strong>the</strong> gates, and at two centres <strong>the</strong> search procedureswere not thorough. In Limpopo visitors were admitted at <strong>on</strong>e centre without beingsearched.51
At <strong>the</strong> Western Cape centre security was particularly tight and <strong>on</strong>ly accredited <strong>of</strong>ficialscould enter <strong>the</strong> campus. Additi<strong>on</strong>al security was put in place due to expected unrest <strong>on</strong><strong>the</strong> part <strong>of</strong> some uni<strong>on</strong>s.Security at <strong>the</strong> three Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape marking centres was not that c<strong>on</strong>vincing. The centresare manned by young women who had been recently appointed by a new securitycompany, and did not seem to have been thoroughly trained. At two marking centres,Kimberley Girls High and Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape High, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> m<strong>on</strong>itor and <strong>on</strong>e <strong>Umalusi</strong> staffmember were not checked at <strong>the</strong> main gate. At ano<strong>the</strong>r marking centre, Nor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeHigh, <strong>on</strong>e entrance door was unmanned and <strong>the</strong>re was free access to <strong>the</strong> markingvenues.Appointment <strong>of</strong> markers and administrative/examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants The appointment <strong>of</strong> markers and administrative assistants was in order, and <strong>the</strong>irappointment had been c<strong>on</strong>firmed in writing. At <strong>on</strong>e centre in Limpopo markersarrived late because <strong>the</strong>y had not received <strong>the</strong>ir letters <strong>of</strong> appointment. It was notenvisaged that this would affect <strong>the</strong> date <strong>on</strong> which marking would be completed. In Mpumalanga <strong>the</strong> requirements for <strong>the</strong> appointment <strong>of</strong> markers and examinati<strong>on</strong>assistants were adhered to. In North West, tertiary students and unemployed teachers were appointed asexaminati<strong>on</strong> assistants. In <strong>the</strong> Eastern Cape, examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants were required to write an aptitude testbefore being appointed.Training <strong>of</strong> markers The markers were all trained in marking procedures and methodology a day before<strong>the</strong> marking commenced. The training was <strong>of</strong> six to eight hours’ durati<strong>on</strong> and took<strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>s and practice marking. In Mpumalanga a great deal <strong>of</strong>time (up to two days) was spent <strong>on</strong> practice marking. In <strong>the</strong> Western Cape trainingwas undertaken <strong>on</strong> 4 and 5 December. The Western Cape has also developed adetailed manual for markers. In <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape it was <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed that all <strong>the</strong> markers attended a general trainingsessi<strong>on</strong> during <strong>the</strong> opening cerem<strong>on</strong>y. Various topics, for example <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s, marksheets, script management and irregularities, were discussed by senior <strong>of</strong>ficials fromHead Office. Thereafter, all markers at <strong>the</strong> marking centres were trained in <strong>the</strong>irsubject groups by <strong>the</strong> relevant chief markers and internal moderators. In North West markers were trained <strong>on</strong> arrival for periods ranging from two hours to afull day.52
Marking procedureSatisfactory marking procedures were documented in each province. No deviati<strong>on</strong> from<strong>the</strong>se procedures was tolerated or <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was satisfactory. Internal moderators spent <strong>the</strong> whole day at <strong>the</strong>marking centres, from <strong>the</strong> first to <strong>the</strong> last day <strong>of</strong> marking. This was a little problematic inLimpopo where an internal moderator was resp<strong>on</strong>sible for several questi<strong>on</strong> papers, and<strong>the</strong>se papers were marked at different centres, up to 30 kilometres apart. This entailedtravelling back and forth, and <strong>the</strong> internal moderator not being available at all centres atall times. This was a waste <strong>of</strong> time.In <strong>the</strong> Western Cape internal moderators were expected to spend eight hours <strong>of</strong> everyday at <strong>the</strong> marking centre moderating scripts. Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was d<strong>on</strong>e at all levelsin North West to ensure that <strong>the</strong> maximum number <strong>of</strong> scripts was covered.External moderati<strong>on</strong>External moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> selected subjects was undertaken by <strong>Umalusi</strong>’s externalmoderators. Apart from <strong>the</strong> <strong>on</strong>-site moderati<strong>on</strong> that was undertaken, packages <strong>of</strong> 20scripts per paper were dispatched to <strong>Umalusi</strong> for centralised moderati<strong>on</strong>. The scripts wereselected according to predetermined criteria.M<strong>on</strong>itoring <strong>of</strong> markingThe chief markers and <strong>the</strong> deputy centre manager m<strong>on</strong>itored <strong>the</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> markersduring <strong>the</strong> marking process, and <strong>the</strong> procedures for dealing with under-performers were inplace. A <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> was prepared <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> each marker. Underperformingmarkers were not dismissed but ra<strong>the</strong>r subjected to fur<strong>the</strong>r training after discussi<strong>on</strong>s, andmoved to o<strong>the</strong>r secti<strong>on</strong>s if <strong>the</strong>ir poor performance c<strong>on</strong>tinued.Handling <strong>of</strong> irregularities The handling <strong>of</strong> irregularities was discussed during training. Most centres hadirregularities registers and committees. Most technical irregularities were solved at <strong>the</strong>centre, and more serious irregularities were referred to <strong>the</strong> provincial irregularitiescommittee. A summary <strong>of</strong> irregularities is presented at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> this chapter. In <strong>the</strong> Eastern Cape <strong>on</strong>e irregularity <strong>of</strong>ficer was appointed for every two markingcentres to exercise c<strong>on</strong>trol over <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing <strong>of</strong> irregularities. In <strong>the</strong> Western Cape<strong>the</strong>re were strict procedures for dealing with irregularities. An irregularities meetingwas held <strong>on</strong> 12 December at <strong>the</strong> marking centre. All markers were fully informed about dealing with irregularities.<strong>Quality</strong> assurance procedures All scripts were checked by examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants and <strong>the</strong> chief markers to ensurethat every questi<strong>on</strong> was marked and that <strong>the</strong>re were no calculati<strong>on</strong> and transfererrors. Everything possible was d<strong>on</strong>e to prevent <strong>the</strong> loss <strong>of</strong> mark sheets, but if <strong>on</strong>ewas lost a provisi<strong>on</strong>al <strong>on</strong>e would be completed. The completed mark sheets were53
photocopied and <strong>on</strong>e remained with <strong>the</strong> batch while <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r was taken to <strong>the</strong>capturing centre by departmental <strong>of</strong>ficials. Multi-levels <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> at all <strong>the</strong> marking centres visited were maintained in <strong>the</strong>interests <strong>of</strong> quality assurance.Reports Reporting differed from province to province. In some cases <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were completeddaily, but in most cases <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s by <strong>the</strong> internal moderators and chief markers werecompleted at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking process, and not every day. The chief markershad to complete qualitative <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s. In most provinces interim <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were <strong>on</strong>ly submitted when an irregularity occurred.In North West, qualitative <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were submitted at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking sessi<strong>on</strong>.Electr<strong>on</strong>ic capturing <strong>of</strong> marksThe capturing <strong>of</strong> marks was d<strong>on</strong>e at provincial data-capturing centres. The mark sheetswere delivered to <strong>the</strong> centre daily by departmental <strong>of</strong>ficials. The systems were set up t<strong>of</strong>lag any irregularities such as marks left out or absent candidates not indicated as such. InGauteng, marks were scanned in, which eliminated mistakes to a large extent. In allcentres <strong>the</strong> capturing <strong>of</strong> marks was taken very seriously and correctness was ensured asfar as possible.Packing and transmissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> documentati<strong>on</strong>The examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants and <strong>the</strong> chief markers counted and recorded <strong>the</strong> scripts. Themark sheets and <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were collected by departmental <strong>of</strong>ficials, and a dispatch registerwas completed.4 AREAS OF GOOD PRACTICE4.1 EXAMINATION CENTRES In almost all centres <strong>the</strong> security measures for <strong>the</strong> safekeeping <strong>of</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>materials were very tight. Most centres kept examinati<strong>on</strong> files that were up to date and that providedguidelines for <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s. Twenty percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> centres visited in <strong>the</strong> Eastern Cape did not have<strong>the</strong>ir examinati<strong>on</strong> files in order. Most examinati<strong>on</strong> venues were c<strong>on</strong>ducive to <strong>the</strong> writing <strong>of</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s. In Mpumalanga, <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> venues were <strong>of</strong>ten cord<strong>on</strong>ed <strong>of</strong>f or located in <strong>the</strong>more remote areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> centre to reduce <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> disrupti<strong>on</strong>.54
The Gauteng Department <strong>of</strong> Educati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials train chief invigilators <strong>on</strong> a regularbasis, that is, before <strong>the</strong> commencement <strong>of</strong> every examinati<strong>on</strong>. In <strong>the</strong> Western Cape training was good and no <strong>on</strong>e was left in any doubt regarding<strong>the</strong>ir duties. Centres had adequate security measures except at Dr WF Nkomo (Gauteng) where<strong>the</strong>re were no guards. Some centres were willing to share facilities like IT facilities during <strong>the</strong> IT practicals. Educators took resp<strong>on</strong>sibility for ensuring a quiet envir<strong>on</strong>ment in <strong>the</strong> vicinity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>examinati<strong>on</strong> rooms. All centres had clocks in <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> rooms.4.2 MARKING CENTRES Security <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> answer scripts was tight at all <strong>the</strong> marking centres visited. M<strong>on</strong>itoring by assessment body <strong>of</strong>ficials was d<strong>on</strong>e properly in Gauteng. Centre managers managed <strong>the</strong> affairs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir centres well. In <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> three marking centres had two deputy centremanagers; <strong>on</strong>e being resp<strong>on</strong>sible for <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essi<strong>on</strong>al side (markers) and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<strong>on</strong>e for administrati<strong>on</strong>. They played a major role in <strong>the</strong> supervisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> markingprocess. In Gauteng <strong>the</strong> scanning <strong>of</strong> scripts was a good innovati<strong>on</strong>. Most venues were suitably chosen and had proper facilities. The relati<strong>on</strong>ship between <strong>the</strong> management, staff and <strong>the</strong> chief markers/examinerswas generally good and no stumbling blocks were <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed. Assessment body <strong>of</strong>ficials used strict criteria to ensure that markers and examinati<strong>on</strong>assistants were properly appointed and in good time. Preparati<strong>on</strong>s for marking and accommodati<strong>on</strong> were d<strong>on</strong>e well in most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>centres. There were effective systems in place for <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trol <strong>of</strong> scripts. Ten to 40% <strong>of</strong> markers in North West were novice markers. This practice will eventuallyprovide a pool <strong>of</strong> competent markers for <strong>the</strong> province.55
5 CHALLENGES5.1 EXAMINATION CENTRES There were centres where more than <strong>on</strong>e pers<strong>on</strong> had access to questi<strong>on</strong> papers. Not all centres had seating plans and implemented <strong>the</strong>m for all examinati<strong>on</strong>s. M<strong>on</strong>itors <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> assessment bodies did not visit all <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> centres for <strong>the</strong>purpose <strong>of</strong> m<strong>on</strong>itoring. Candidates’ identificati<strong>on</strong> documents were not displayed at all times by allcandidates during <strong>the</strong> writing <strong>of</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s. In Mpumalanga <strong>the</strong> rule was notrigorously applied. Unused examinati<strong>on</strong> material/stati<strong>on</strong>ery was not sent back from all centres to <strong>the</strong>assessment bodies after <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s. The first part <strong>of</strong> invigilati<strong>on</strong> just before writing commenced needs to be improved. Inmany cases <strong>the</strong> invigilators did not go through all <strong>the</strong> steps, such as checking <strong>the</strong>paper with candidates, and were not c<strong>on</strong>sistent in allowing sufficient reading time. The locati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> rooms was not indicated in some centres. At Nhlosokuhle in KZN, candidates started writing late because a packagec<strong>on</strong>taining 10 questi<strong>on</strong> papers had been misdirected to ano<strong>the</strong>r examinati<strong>on</strong>centre. At some centres <strong>the</strong> candidates were accommodated in several classrooms, andthis tended to delay <strong>the</strong> start <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>. Examinati<strong>on</strong> stati<strong>on</strong>ery was not dealt with securely and ec<strong>on</strong>omically at all centres.5.2 MARKING CENTRES In <strong>the</strong> Eastern Cape it was discovered that <strong>on</strong>e marking centre, Byletts Combined,was very isolated and this put examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants at risk as <strong>the</strong>y had to travelquite l<strong>on</strong>g distances to <strong>the</strong> nearest township/village. At Phandulwazi <strong>the</strong> area wasvery c<strong>on</strong>fined with up to 40 markers being crammed into a classroom. Not all centres had irregularity committees <strong>on</strong> site. In <strong>the</strong> Free State <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence <strong>of</strong> visits by m<strong>on</strong>itors from <strong>the</strong> PED. In Gauteng security needed to be improved at President High and Krugersdorp High.The same c<strong>on</strong>cern was observed at two KZN marking centres, Eshowe High andUmlaziComtech, <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> days <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> visits. Accommodati<strong>on</strong> for females at Port Shepst<strong>on</strong>e Primary; Eastern Cape, was not in anacceptable c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>. In Limpopo some internal moderators had to travel between two to three centres for<strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marking at different centres.56
It was <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed that in <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants found many errorsrelating to <strong>the</strong> totalling and transferring <strong>of</strong> marks. Markers did not seem to doublecheck <strong>the</strong>se areas. A serious irregularity was <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed in <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape, where it was <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed thatsome chief markers and internal moderators were called back to re-check markedscripts in order to “quality assure” borderline scripts and level-<strong>on</strong>e marks.6 RECOMMENDATIONS6.1 EXAMINATION CENTRES While <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s are being c<strong>on</strong>ducted fairly well at schools, it is important thatevery<strong>on</strong>e involved at an examinati<strong>on</strong> centre should familiarise <strong>the</strong>mselves with <strong>the</strong>guidelines before every examinati<strong>on</strong>, and ensure that procedures are followedmeticulously. Procedures that are prescribed for <strong>the</strong> running <strong>of</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s should be followedand applied without fail. This will address inc<strong>on</strong>sistencies relating to issues like <strong>the</strong>presentati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> ID books, seating plans, <strong>the</strong> handling <strong>of</strong> unused stati<strong>on</strong>ery, etc. Generally, <strong>the</strong> centres visited maintained a good standard when c<strong>on</strong>ductingexaminati<strong>on</strong>s and this practice should be encouraged and maintained. Security at <strong>the</strong> three Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape marking centres needs to be improved. Securityguards need to be trained in all aspects <strong>of</strong> security c<strong>on</strong>trols at <strong>the</strong> marking centres.6.2 MARKING CENTRES Irregularity committees should be formed at all <strong>the</strong> marking centres. The PEDs should ensure that <strong>the</strong> marking centres are visited regularly by m<strong>on</strong>itorsfrom <strong>the</strong> PEDs. Access c<strong>on</strong>trol needs to be improved at some centres. Security at <strong>the</strong> gates <strong>of</strong> every centre should keep registers <strong>of</strong> visitors entering andleaving <strong>the</strong> venues. Krugersdorp High School in <strong>the</strong> North West venue did not havesuch a register; nor did Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape High in <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape. Where <strong>the</strong>re is <strong>on</strong>e moderator for more than <strong>on</strong>e paper, <strong>the</strong> marking should beaccommodated at adjacent centres to allow <strong>the</strong> internal moderator to move easilyfrom <strong>on</strong>e to <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r. The Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape PED should put stricter measures in place to ensure that markersadd marks accurately.57
The issue <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed in <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape <strong>of</strong> remarking borderline scripts is viewed in aserious light by <strong>Umalusi</strong>. This practice should be eradicated completely. The DBEshould ensure that not <strong>on</strong>ly does this practice not happen in <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape, butalso in all <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r provinces.7 CONCLUSION The examinati<strong>on</strong>s were generally c<strong>on</strong>ducted in a manner that would not callcredibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> NSC exam into questi<strong>on</strong>. Over <strong>the</strong> years an appropriate system hasevolved. Attenti<strong>on</strong> should however be paid to <strong>the</strong> challenges <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed in this <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>. The issue<strong>of</strong> tampering with marks, that is, <strong>the</strong> re-marking borderline cases, as was d<strong>on</strong>e in <strong>the</strong>Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape, requires urgent attenti<strong>on</strong>. Irregularities <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed to <strong>Umalusi</strong>Table 5.3: Summary <strong>of</strong> irregularities <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed to <strong>Umalusi</strong>Nature <strong>of</strong> irregularity Detail/example <strong>of</strong> irregularity Province implicatedUnregistered candidatesCandidates without properidentificati<strong>on</strong>Candidates caught withillegal objectsLate start <strong>of</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>sCandidates arriving lateGerman, Hebrew, Portuguese,Physical Science, AgriculturalSciences, History, English,Ma<strong>the</strong>matics, Life Sciences,Engineering Graphics and Design,Geography20 wrote Maths P3 without beingregistered for it.Candidate wrote <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>with no identificati<strong>on</strong>.Crib notesCell ph<strong>on</strong>e/unauthorised material(Ec<strong>on</strong>omics)Heavy rains and floodingMotivati<strong>on</strong>al speaker at schoolCommunity protest/ accidentLate delivery <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papersCandidate did not have admissi<strong>on</strong>letterProblems with transportCandidates arrived late for CATexamGautengLimpopoGautengECape/KZN/NWestGauteng/WCapeE Cape/KZN/WCapeGautengMpumalangaNCapeGautengKZN/WCapeNCapeAdministrative irregularities Mark sheet missing Limpopo/Mpumalanga58
Nature <strong>of</strong> irregularity Detail/example <strong>of</strong> irregularity Province implicatedInvigilator misplaced str<strong>on</strong>g room NCapekey for Geography P2Computer-related problems(CAT and IT)Power outages/ files missing/questi<strong>on</strong> 2.1 would not open/ foldersmissing/ computer virus were pickedat some centresEducators <strong>on</strong> strike during <strong>the</strong> writing<strong>of</strong> CAT.Invigilators were sent fromdistricts.Free State/ECape/KZN/Mpumalanga/NCape/NWest/WCapeGautengGautengCandidates deniedpermissi<strong>on</strong> to writeCandidate writing wr<strong>on</strong>gpaper or wr<strong>on</strong>g levelInsufficient answerbooks/questi<strong>on</strong> papersOutside influences <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>examIll during exam or in hospitalOmissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> subject <strong>on</strong>timetableCandidate left venue withanswer bookCandidates drunkCandidate wearing necklace(beads)Textbooks not handed in prior toexamFarmers strike – Business Studies couldnot be writtenAfrikaans FAL instead <strong>of</strong> HLEnglish P2/ Ma<strong>the</strong>matics P3 /Afrikaans P2 / Design (<strong>the</strong>ory)Urdu HL P1 / Life Sciences P2Wrote English HL instead <strong>of</strong> FALNodal point short <strong>of</strong> answer books10 questi<strong>on</strong> papers short (Tourism)TourismShortage <strong>of</strong> Life Sciences Versi<strong>on</strong> 2.Noise from neighbouring areaCommunity members stormed examvenueCandidate pregnant and inhospital/ fell ill while writing <strong>the</strong>paperCandidate collapsedThree candidates pregnantCandidates fell illCandidate gave birthHistory P2Civil TechnologyC<strong>on</strong>sumer Studies, Hospitality Studiesand Nautical Sciences P2Free StateWCapeECapeGautengLimpopoMpumalangaGautengLimpopoNCapeNWestGautengWCapeGautengKZNLimpopoMpumalangaNCapeGautengGautengGauteng59
Nature <strong>of</strong> irregularity Detail/example <strong>of</strong> irregularity Province implicatedCandidates arrested or inpris<strong>on</strong>Arrested day before exam/ wrote inpris<strong>on</strong>Candidates arrested before examsKZNMpumalangastartedIncorrect setworks studied ERCO/SACAI Afrikaans LimpopoIllegible informati<strong>on</strong>/ errors <strong>on</strong><strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paperEc<strong>on</strong>omics (Afrikaans versi<strong>on</strong>)Maths P2 – error with <strong>the</strong> diagram.MpumalangaMpumalangaWr<strong>on</strong>g questi<strong>on</strong> papersopenedCAT P2 opened instead <strong>of</strong> PhysicalSciences P2. Afrikaans SAL <strong>on</strong> labelbut Afrikaans HL questi<strong>on</strong> papersNCapeIt should be noted that most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se irregularities were dealt with at <strong>the</strong> exam centres inorder to ensure minimal or no disrupti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> process. The seriousirregularities that could not be resolved immediately were recorded as such, and wereaddressed at <strong>the</strong> Nati<strong>on</strong>al Examinati<strong>on</strong>s Irregularities Committee (NEIC) meeting where<strong>Umalusi</strong> was represented.A serious irregularity in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> a possible leakage <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers was <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed inKZN where it was alleged that learners were found in possessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers. Thematter was investigated by <strong>the</strong> DBE and <strong>Umalusi</strong>. The results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> learner(s) implicatedwill be withheld pending <strong>the</strong> outcome <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>on</strong>-going investigati<strong>on</strong>s.(Please refer to Addenda 5 <strong>on</strong> page 350 for more details <strong>on</strong> this chapter)60
CHAPTER 6STANDARDISATION AND VERIFICATION OF RESULTS1 SCOPE OF THE STANDARDISATIONA total <strong>of</strong> 58 subjects, including <strong>the</strong> n<strong>on</strong>-<strong>of</strong>ficial languages set by <strong>the</strong> IndependentExaminati<strong>on</strong>s Board (IEB), were subjected to <strong>the</strong> standardisati<strong>on</strong> process at <strong>the</strong> DBEStandardisati<strong>on</strong> Meeting.2 GENERAL FINDINGSThe DBE standardisati<strong>on</strong> data was presented in a manner that was acceptable to <strong>Umalusi</strong>.Generally, <strong>the</strong> DBE recommendati<strong>on</strong>s for adjustments were in line with <strong>Umalusi</strong>recommendati<strong>on</strong>s. In subjects where <strong>the</strong>re was no agreement, both <strong>Umalusi</strong> and <strong>the</strong> DBEinitially presented <strong>the</strong>ir motivating factors and agreement was reached cordially.A general improvement was observed in <strong>the</strong> overall learner performance.3 AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENTThe DBE was alerted to <strong>the</strong> problem observed with <strong>the</strong> Life Orientati<strong>on</strong> marks wherelearners were awarded 80% and it was evident that some tampering and lenience hadtaken place. The DBE was requested to send a message to all provinces, indicating thatshould this problem persist in <strong>the</strong> future all learners with 80% would be adjusteddownwards. Unfortunately, this would affect even <strong>the</strong> innocent learners who deserve <strong>the</strong>80% mark.Languages: The high performance in <strong>the</strong> Home Languages in relati<strong>on</strong> to all <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rsubjects c<strong>on</strong>tinues to be a problem.61
4 2012 STANDARDISATION DECISIONSThe final outcome <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> standardisati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 58 NSC subjects is as follows:Raw marksModerated upwardModerated downward:41 subjects: 5 subjects: 12 subjects<strong>Umalusi</strong> is pleased with <strong>the</strong> fact that for 71% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subjects raw marks were accepted. Thisis an indicati<strong>on</strong> that <strong>the</strong> qualificati<strong>on</strong> is stabilising and that <strong>the</strong> assessment instruments arein general being pitched at <strong>the</strong> correct levels. It should also be noted that for <strong>the</strong> subjectswhere upward adjustments were effected, no subject was adjusted to <strong>the</strong> maximum 10%.5 VERIFICATION OF THE RESULTING PROCESSES ANDDATA<strong>Umalusi</strong> has developed standardisati<strong>on</strong>, moderati<strong>on</strong> and results modules to verify andcertify candidate results. <strong>Umalusi</strong> has also issued directives for certificati<strong>on</strong> as well assetting requirements for standardisati<strong>on</strong> and results for <strong>the</strong> NSC so that <strong>the</strong>re are standardsagainst which assessment bodies are able to develop systems and submit data annually.These standards are used to verify <strong>the</strong> resulting datasets (standardisati<strong>on</strong>, subject andcandidate data) generated by <strong>the</strong> assessment bodies using <strong>the</strong>ir examinati<strong>on</strong>administrati<strong>on</strong> systems for <strong>the</strong> NSC.5.1 FINDINGS The administrati<strong>on</strong> and results systems <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE have been m<strong>on</strong>itored and beenfound to be compliant. The system was found to be compliant in respect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> requirements for awarding<strong>the</strong> NSC or a subject statement. The adjustments approved at <strong>the</strong> standardisati<strong>on</strong> meeting held <strong>on</strong> Wednesday 18December, and in <strong>the</strong> statistical moderati<strong>on</strong> process, have been verified as correct.62
6 CONCLUSIONGiven <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> candidate data (i.e. results) submitted for verificati<strong>on</strong> for <strong>the</strong> 2012NSC examinati<strong>on</strong>s complies with <strong>the</strong> policies and directives governing <strong>the</strong> qualificati<strong>on</strong>, itis recommended that <strong>the</strong> NSC results for <strong>the</strong> DBE be approved, should <strong>the</strong> Council find <strong>the</strong>overall credibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> NSC examinati<strong>on</strong> to be in order.63
CHAPTER 7CONCLUSIONThe findings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> quality assurance processes have indicated that <strong>the</strong>re has been asteady process <strong>of</strong> refinement and stabilisati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> implementati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nati<strong>on</strong>al SeniorCertificate examinati<strong>on</strong>s.The process started with <strong>the</strong> setting <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers and memoranda for <strong>the</strong> November2012 examinati<strong>on</strong> and for <strong>the</strong> supplementary examinati<strong>on</strong> early in 2013. A total <strong>of</strong> 262questi<strong>on</strong> papers were set and <strong>the</strong>se were moderated until <strong>the</strong>y were approved by<strong>Umalusi</strong>. The ideal is that this process should start earlier, preferably <strong>the</strong> previous year, inorder to avoid bottlenecks towards <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> year when questi<strong>on</strong> papers have to beapproved and distributed by certain due dates.A form <strong>of</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing to <strong>Umalusi</strong> has been suggested to keep <strong>Umalusi</strong> informed about <strong>the</strong>progress <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> setting and moderati<strong>on</strong> process without running <strong>the</strong> risk <strong>of</strong> leaking detailsabout <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers to any<strong>on</strong>e outside <strong>the</strong> Nati<strong>on</strong>al Examinati<strong>on</strong>s andAssessment Directorate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE.The <strong>on</strong>e area in which performance has given rise to serious c<strong>on</strong>cern is SBA. This includesLife Orientati<strong>on</strong>, in which Grade 12 learners across <strong>the</strong> country wrote a CAT in September.The results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> task revealed that this subject had been under-estimated by learnersand teachers alike, and that <strong>the</strong>re was a significant discrepancy between <strong>the</strong> resultsachieved in school-based tasks and assessment, and <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CAT, withcandidates achieving much lower marks in <strong>the</strong> latter.An improvement has been observed in <strong>the</strong> running <strong>of</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong> meetings withspecific reference to <strong>the</strong> practice marking that was c<strong>on</strong>ducted at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>semeetings. A cause for c<strong>on</strong>cern is that not all PEDs were represented at all <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>s.In some instances some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> representatives had to leave <strong>the</strong> meetings before <strong>the</strong>yended. This should be investigated and remedied. Attendance at <strong>the</strong>se memorandumdiscussi<strong>on</strong>s is essential for a successful marking sessi<strong>on</strong>.This year a different approach to <strong>the</strong> verificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marking was taken, with <strong>on</strong>-siteverificati<strong>on</strong> and centralised verificati<strong>on</strong> being d<strong>on</strong>e. The <strong>on</strong>-site verificati<strong>on</strong> was a veryfruitful exercise as it allowed <strong>the</strong> external moderators to interact with internal moderators,chief markers, senior markers and markers. It was thus possible to identify potentialproblem areas and alert internal moderators to <strong>the</strong>m. The verificati<strong>on</strong> took place at <strong>the</strong>64
very beginning <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking sessi<strong>on</strong>. It was <strong>the</strong>refore possible to be proactive and solveproblems before <strong>the</strong>y had accumulated. The <strong>on</strong>-site verificati<strong>on</strong> also gave externalmoderators a better perspective <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> scripts that were submitted for centralisedverificati<strong>on</strong>. Various c<strong>on</strong>cerns were raised with <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> marking, and <strong>the</strong>appointment and training <strong>of</strong> markers. These issues require urgent attenti<strong>on</strong> to ensure that<strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> marking improves in <strong>the</strong> future.The c<strong>on</strong>duct <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> writing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> marking went fairly well. The twomajor irregularities <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed in <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape and KZN had <strong>the</strong> potential to jeopardise<strong>the</strong> integrity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>; however, it is pleasing to <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> that thoroughinvestigati<strong>on</strong>s were c<strong>on</strong>ducted and measures were put in place to ensure that <strong>the</strong> examwas not compromised.Standardisati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> exam results was c<strong>on</strong>ducted in line with <strong>the</strong> set principles. Verificati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> capturing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> standardisati<strong>on</strong> decisi<strong>on</strong> was c<strong>on</strong>ducted to ensure correct capturing.Apart from <strong>the</strong> various challenges <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed in this <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>, it can be said that <strong>the</strong> NSCexaminati<strong>on</strong> was c<strong>on</strong>ducted in a credible manner, and that at <strong>the</strong> time <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> approval<strong>of</strong> results <strong>Umalusi</strong> was not aware <strong>of</strong> anything that might have had potential tocompromise <strong>the</strong> credibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> NSC examinati<strong>on</strong>.65
ADDENDUM 1QUESTION PAPER MODERATION (NOVEMBER2012/MARCH 2013)(To be read in c<strong>on</strong>juncti<strong>on</strong> with chapter <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> main <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>)1. ACCOUNTING NOV’ 12<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:C<strong>on</strong>cerns were raised about <strong>the</strong> time allocati<strong>on</strong> for Q4 in view <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong> details that haveto be written out. As some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s involved calculati<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>the</strong> marks allocatedwere too few.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:Coverage <strong>of</strong> Learning Outcome (LO) 3 was too low, as shown in <strong>the</strong> table below. Inadditi<strong>on</strong>, mark allocati<strong>on</strong> and time allocati<strong>on</strong> were not compatible in Questi<strong>on</strong> 4.LO1 LO2 LO3Norm (marks) 150–180 60–75 60–75Examiner (marks) 163 75 62Cognitive skills/level <strong>of</strong> difficulty:The paper was too heavily weighted with challenging questi<strong>on</strong>s, as shown in <strong>the</strong> tablebelow.Low Medium HighNorm % 30 40 30Examiner % 27 38 35Marking memorandum:The marking memorandum was user-friendly and made provisi<strong>on</strong> for alternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:The assessment <strong>of</strong> a balance sheet this year would make <strong>the</strong> paper complicated;however, as an income statement was asked last year, it is appropriate that a balancesheet be asked this year, as it was not possible to ask both statements. The external66
moderators’ view was that <strong>the</strong> paper was too difficult and that some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>sneeded to be reviewed. More questi<strong>on</strong>s were also still required for LO3.Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>:<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:There were a few typos that needed to be attended to.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:LO3 figure <strong>of</strong> 62 marks was now acceptable.Cognitive skills/Level <strong>of</strong> difficultyLow Medium HighNorm % 30 40 30Examiner % 34 39 27Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.2. ACCOUNTING MAR ‘13The paper was <strong>of</strong> a good standard; errors are to be attended to by examiner.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The paper adhered to <strong>the</strong> applicable policy.LO1 LO2 LO3Norm (marks) 150–180 60–75 60–75Examiner % 54 25 20Examiner (marks) 161 79 60Cognitive skillsLow Medium HighNorm % 30 40 30Examiner % 32 40 28Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum were approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.67
3. AFRIKAANS FAL P1 NOV ‘12<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The picture in <strong>the</strong> advert was unclear.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:While acknowledging that <strong>the</strong> internal moderator performed at her best, <strong>the</strong>re was stillroom for critical c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tentious matters such as <strong>the</strong> style <strong>of</strong> and approach toText A, <strong>the</strong> appropriateness <strong>of</strong> Text C and <strong>the</strong> suitability <strong>of</strong> Text D in <strong>the</strong> FAL paper.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The carto<strong>on</strong> was not suitable (drinking and smoking), and replacement wasrecommended. The panel did not replace <strong>the</strong> picture, and <strong>the</strong> objecti<strong>on</strong> still stood.Cognitive skills:Distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive skills was not appropriate. The marks were not correctlydistributed.First moderati<strong>on</strong>Low Medium HighNorm % 40 40 20Examiner % 36 39 25Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>Low Medium HighNorm % 40 40 20Examiner % 35 34 31Almost all texts still needed to be reworked.A number <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s needed to be refined and <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum had tocorrelate more accurately with <strong>the</strong> paper.68
Third moderati<strong>on</strong>C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:At <strong>the</strong> third external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was compliance in all respects and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>paper and memorandum were approved.Finding:At <strong>the</strong> third external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was compliance in all respects and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>paper and memorandum were approved. After reworking, <strong>the</strong> paper comparedfavourably with previous papers.4. AFRIKAANS FAL P1 MAR ‘13First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The picture with karate characters might be too faint in certain provinces; <strong>the</strong> firstinstructi<strong>on</strong> was ambiguous; numbering was incorrect; appropriate f<strong>on</strong>ts were not usedthroughout <strong>the</strong> paper; paper could not be completed in <strong>the</strong> allocated time.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:While acknowledging that <strong>the</strong> internal moderator performed at her best, <strong>the</strong>re was stillroom for critical c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tentious matters such as <strong>the</strong> style <strong>of</strong> and approach totext A, <strong>the</strong> appropriateness <strong>of</strong> text C and <strong>the</strong> suitability <strong>of</strong> text D in <strong>the</strong> FAL paper.Cognitive skills:To start with <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper was not properly balanced regarding cognitive levels, butthis was corrected.A 12 13 5B 4 4 2C 20 17 3TOTAL 36 34 10ACTUAL % 45 42 13NORM % 40 40 20Adjustment required % +5 +2 -769
Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:Examples and illustrati<strong>on</strong>s were not suitable, appropriate, relevant or academicallycorrect.Cognitive levels:The distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive skills was inappropriate and <strong>the</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> markswas incorrect.Low Medium HighNorm % 40 40 20Examiner % 51 35 14Marking memorandum:The memo was not accurate and would not have facilitated marking. It did not makeprovisi<strong>on</strong> for alternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses in respect <strong>of</strong> certain questi<strong>on</strong>s.Language and bias:Subject terminology was not used correctly; <strong>the</strong>re were subtleties in grammar that mightcreate c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>.Predictability:Text C was very closely related to a text in an existing paper.Finding:At <strong>the</strong> fifth external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was compliance in all respects and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>paper and memorandum were approved. The questi<strong>on</strong> paper had been substantiallyreworked, resulting in an improved distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels and clearer formulati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s. The memorandum had also been improved.5. AFRIKAANS FAL P2 NOV ’12<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Instructi<strong>on</strong>s in respect <strong>of</strong> certain questi<strong>on</strong>s had to be replaced.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:The internal moderator revealed an improved ability to analyse <strong>the</strong> paper critically.70
C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:There was no correlati<strong>on</strong> between mark allocati<strong>on</strong>, level <strong>of</strong> difficulty and time allocati<strong>on</strong>.In Q2.19 <strong>the</strong>re were too many facts for <strong>on</strong>e mark.Cognitive skills:There was an imbalance in <strong>the</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> cognitive skills, particularly within c<strong>on</strong>textualquesti<strong>on</strong>s. There was an over-c<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> level 2 questi<strong>on</strong>s.Marking memorandum:Not all answers in <strong>the</strong> memo were accurate. The marking memorandum did notcorresp<strong>on</strong>d with <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper in all respects and would not facilitate marking.Language and bias:There was ambiguity in several questi<strong>on</strong>s. The recommendati<strong>on</strong> was made to reformulateor replace such questi<strong>on</strong>s.Finding:At <strong>the</strong> third external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was compliance in all respects and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>paper and memorandum were approved. The questi<strong>on</strong> paper had been substantiallyreworked, resulting in an improved distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels and clearer formulati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s. The memorandum had also improved.6. AFRIKAANS FAL P2 MAR ‘13Finding:At <strong>the</strong> third external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was compliance in all respects and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>paper and memorandum were approved. The marking memorandum was now moreresp<strong>on</strong>sive to <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper.7. AFRIKAANS FAL P3 NOV ‘12<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Instructi<strong>on</strong>s to candidates were not clearly specified (Q1.2, 1.3 and 1.5). F<strong>on</strong>ts used werenot appropriate (Q1.4) and candidates would have had difficulty reading <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>.The quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> picture needed to be improved (Q1.1 and 1.3). Certain topics neededto be reformulated and <strong>the</strong> memorandum was not accurate.71
Cognitive skills:At <strong>the</strong> third external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was compliance in most respects.Finding:At <strong>the</strong> third external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was compliance in all respects and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>paper and memorandum were approved. The paper was found to be compliant with <strong>the</strong>minimum standards in <strong>the</strong> Subject Assessment Guidelines (SAG).8. AFRIKAANS FAL P3 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Instructi<strong>on</strong>s to candidates were not clear; appropriate f<strong>on</strong>ts were not used throughout <strong>the</strong>paper; <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> picture in Q2.4 needed improvement.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:Examples and illustrati<strong>on</strong>s were not suitable, appropriate, relevant or academicallycorrect.Cognitive skills:At <strong>the</strong> third external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was compliance in most respects, but it was notpossible to determine <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels. The distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels wasdetermined by <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> writing pieces. Choice questi<strong>on</strong> were not at an equallevel <strong>of</strong> difficulty, but this was a writing paper, and <strong>the</strong> prescribed writing modesdetermined <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> difficulty. It was <strong>the</strong>refore not possible to set topics <strong>of</strong> equaldifficulty.Finding:At <strong>the</strong> third external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was compliance in all respects and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>paper and memorandum were approved. The paper c<strong>on</strong>sequently adhered to <strong>the</strong>prescribed subject guidelines. The topics should enable <strong>the</strong> candidates to dem<strong>on</strong>strate<strong>the</strong>ir ability to communicate in Afrikaans.9. AFRIKAANS HL P1 NOV ‘12<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> carto<strong>on</strong> needed attenti<strong>on</strong>. The examples and illustrati<strong>on</strong>s used were notsuitable, appropriate or relevant.72
Marking memorandum:The marking memorandum was not accurate. The boy’s name in <strong>the</strong> carto<strong>on</strong> showed atendency towards bias, being race-insensitive.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> third external moderati<strong>on</strong>.10. AFRIKAANS HL P1 MAR ‘13First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The visual text in Secti<strong>on</strong> A Text B was not clear.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The illustrati<strong>on</strong>s and examples used were not suitable – Text B: visual.Marking memorandum:The memo was not accurate – Secti<strong>on</strong> A gave 29 marks instead <strong>of</strong> 30.Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>The text in Secti<strong>on</strong> B was too easy and would have to be replaced with <strong>on</strong>e at anappropriate level for HL candidates.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong>.11. AFRIKAANS HL P2 NOV ‘12Instructi<strong>on</strong>s were not clearly specified. The questi<strong>on</strong>s in Secti<strong>on</strong> C focused <strong>on</strong> a fewAssessment Standards <strong>on</strong>ly. The questi<strong>on</strong>s in Secti<strong>on</strong> A and Secti<strong>on</strong> B were not <strong>of</strong> an equallevel <strong>of</strong> difficulty. Terminology was not used correctly in some instances.73
Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong>.12. AFRIKAANS HL P2 MAR ‘13First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The instructi<strong>on</strong>s were not clearly specified.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:Questi<strong>on</strong>s in Secti<strong>on</strong> C focused <strong>on</strong> just a few assessment standards.Cognitive skills:Questi<strong>on</strong>s in Secti<strong>on</strong> A and Secti<strong>on</strong> B were not <strong>of</strong> an equal level <strong>of</strong> difficulty.Language and bias:Terminology was not used correctly in some instances.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.13. AFRIKAANS HL P3 NOV ‘12The illustrati<strong>on</strong> relating to Q1.6.2 was not clear. Choice questi<strong>on</strong>s were not <strong>of</strong> an equallevel <strong>of</strong> difficulty. Q3.1 and 3.3 were asked in <strong>the</strong> March 2011 paper.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong>.14. AFRIKAANS HL P3 MAR ‘13First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Choice questi<strong>on</strong>s were not <strong>of</strong> an equal level <strong>of</strong> difficulty.74
Marking memorandum:The memo was inaccurate.Language and bias:The language register not appropriate – <strong>the</strong> formulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Q2.4 was not clear and couldc<strong>on</strong>fuse candidates. The formulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> instructi<strong>on</strong> in Q3.2 could c<strong>on</strong>fuse candidates.Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>Cognitive skills:Choice questi<strong>on</strong>s were not <strong>of</strong> an equal level <strong>of</strong> difficulty. Q3.3 – advertisement – neededto be reformulated.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> third external moderati<strong>on</strong>.15. AFRIKAANS SAL P1 NOV ‘12Instructi<strong>on</strong>s to candidates needed to be reworked. Text B was recommended forreplacement because it was not visual as required.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The paper did not adequately cover LOs and ASs as prescribed. The weighting andspread <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent across LOs and ASs was not appropriate.Cognitive skills:There was compliance with <strong>the</strong> requirements.Low Medium HighNorm % 40 40 20Examiner % 44 39 17Marking memorandum:The memorandum was inaccurate and it did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d with <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper.75
Language and bias:The language register was not appropriate for <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> candidates. There weresubtleties in grammar that might create c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>.Finding:At <strong>the</strong> fifth external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was compliance in all respects and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>paper and memorandum were approved. The questi<strong>on</strong> paper would succeed inassessing <strong>the</strong> knowledge and skills <strong>of</strong> candidates comprehensively.16. AFRIKAANS SAL P1 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Instructi<strong>on</strong>s needed to be reworked; Text B needed to be replaced as it was not visual.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:Reworking <strong>of</strong> texts, reformulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s and answers were still necessary although<strong>the</strong> internal moderator had recommended a substantial number <strong>of</strong> changes.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:Examples and illustrati<strong>on</strong>s were not suitable.Cognitive skills:The distributi<strong>on</strong> was acceptable.Low Medium HighNorm % 40 45 14Examiner % 41 39 17Finding:The requested change <strong>of</strong> text was d<strong>on</strong>e and all o<strong>the</strong>r correcti<strong>on</strong>s were addressed. At <strong>the</strong>fifth external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum were approved.17. AFRIKAANS SAL P2 NOV ‘12<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Amendments to <strong>the</strong> instructi<strong>on</strong>s were required (Q1.1, 1.2, 2.4, 3.3). Variati<strong>on</strong> in f<strong>on</strong>t typesand sizes needed to be c<strong>on</strong>sidered in a creative writing paper. Certain visuals needed tobe enlarged (Q1.1, 2.1, 3.3).76
C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:At <strong>the</strong> final moderati<strong>on</strong> Q3.6 had not been changed. Examples and illustrati<strong>on</strong>s used werenot suitable, appropriate or relevant, for example <strong>the</strong> visual in Q1.5.4 fell outside <strong>the</strong>candidates’ world <strong>of</strong> experience.Cognitive skills:Choice questi<strong>on</strong>s were not <strong>of</strong> an equal level <strong>of</strong> difficulty, but this was a writing paper, and<strong>the</strong> prescribed writing modes determined <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> difficulty. It was <strong>the</strong>refore notpossible to set topics <strong>of</strong> an equal level <strong>of</strong> difficulty.Marking memorandum:The memorandum was not accurate.Language and bias:There were subtleties in <strong>the</strong> grammar that might create c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>.Predictability:The replacement <strong>of</strong> Q1.4 and 2.1 was recommended as <strong>the</strong>se <strong>the</strong>mes had appeared inrecent papers.Finding:At <strong>the</strong> third external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was compliance in all respects and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>paper and memorandum were approved. The paper would facilitate creative writing andallow candidates to dem<strong>on</strong>strate <strong>the</strong>ir writing skills. The paper was also compliant with <strong>the</strong>requirements stipulated in <strong>the</strong> SAG document.18. AFRIKAANS SAL P2 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Instructi<strong>on</strong>s needed to be amended (Q1.1, 1.2, 2.4). Variati<strong>on</strong> in f<strong>on</strong>t types and sizes needto be c<strong>on</strong>sidered in a creative writing questi<strong>on</strong> paper. The quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> visuals needed tobe improved (Q2.4).C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The c<strong>on</strong>tent was well covered. Examples and illustrati<strong>on</strong>s were not suitable, appropriate orrelevant – Q1.3 touched <strong>on</strong> sensitivities traumatic for children.77
Cognitive skills:Choice questi<strong>on</strong>s were not <strong>of</strong> an equal level <strong>of</strong> difficulty, but it is not possible to set topics<strong>of</strong> an equal level <strong>of</strong> difficulty in a writing paper.Marking memorandum:The memo was inaccurate.Language and bias:Subtleties in <strong>the</strong> grammar might create c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong> – an idiomatic expressi<strong>on</strong> was notsuitable as a heading (Q1.2); <strong>the</strong>re was lack <strong>of</strong> coherence between first and sec<strong>on</strong>dsentences (Q2.3); <strong>the</strong> situati<strong>on</strong> was clumsily formulated (Q2.1).Predictability:Q1.4 and 2.1 needed to be replaced because <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>mes had appeared in recentpapers.Cognitive skills:At <strong>the</strong> third external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was compliance in most respects. Choice questi<strong>on</strong>swere not <strong>of</strong> an equal level <strong>of</strong> difficulty, but this was a writing paper, and <strong>the</strong> prescribedwriting modes determined <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> difficulty. It was <strong>the</strong>refore not possible to set topics<strong>of</strong> an equal level <strong>of</strong> difficulty.Finding:At <strong>the</strong> fifth external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was compliance in all respects and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>paper and memorandum were approved. The requested change <strong>of</strong> text had been d<strong>on</strong>eand all o<strong>the</strong>r correcti<strong>on</strong>s had been appropriately addressed.19. AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES NOV‘12Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was unfair and invalid and not reliable for measuring <strong>the</strong> competency<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Agricultural Management Practices candidates. Accordingly, it did not meet <strong>the</strong>required minimum standard for <strong>the</strong> NSC Examinati<strong>on</strong> based <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> following areas: Passages/paragraphs in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper were very l<strong>on</strong>g, which requiredcandidates to spend more time <strong>on</strong> reading than answering <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s from Secti<strong>on</strong> A were repeated in Secti<strong>on</strong> B. A uniform f<strong>on</strong>t size was not used. Some instructi<strong>on</strong>s to candidates were ambiguous.78
There were incorrect calculati<strong>on</strong>s and totalling <strong>of</strong> marks in <strong>the</strong> memorandumFinding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.20. AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MAR‘13Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was unfair and invalid and was not reliable for measuring <strong>the</strong>competency <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Agricultural Management Practices candidates. Accordingly, it didnot meet <strong>the</strong> required minimum standard for <strong>the</strong> NSC Examinati<strong>on</strong> based <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> followingareas: Passages/paragraphs in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper were very l<strong>on</strong>g, which requiredcandidates to spend more time <strong>on</strong> reading than answering <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s from Secti<strong>on</strong> A were repeated in Secti<strong>on</strong> B. The f<strong>on</strong>t size in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper was not applied uniformly. Some instructi<strong>on</strong>s to candidates were ambiguous. Diagrams/pictures were not print-ready Some resp<strong>on</strong>ses in <strong>the</strong> memorandum were not comprehensive enough.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum were approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.21. Agricultural Sciences P1 Nov ‘12<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Marks in Q3.3.1 were not <strong>the</strong> same in <strong>the</strong> memorandum as in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper; <strong>the</strong>quality <strong>of</strong> illustrati<strong>on</strong>s in Q3.2 and 4.1 was poor and <strong>the</strong>refore not print-ready. Uncleardiagrams and illustrati<strong>on</strong>s rendered <strong>the</strong> layout <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper unfriendly tocandidates.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper and <strong>the</strong> memorandum had a number <strong>of</strong> inc<strong>on</strong>sistencies in terms <strong>of</strong>good quality moderati<strong>on</strong>: Grammar in Q1.3.3, 2.2.3, 2.4, 3.1.1, 3.3.2, 4.4. Q3.1.4 was omitted in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper but appeared in <strong>the</strong> memorandum. Diagrams and illustrati<strong>on</strong>s in Q3.2 and 4.1, including labelling, were not clear. There were incorrect calculati<strong>on</strong>s in Q2.4.79
Q4.1.1 required labelling <strong>of</strong> A, B, C and I, but <strong>the</strong> memorandum labelled it J instead<strong>of</strong> I. The summary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> internal moderator’s <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> under <strong>the</strong> headings, Marking memo,<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria and Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper, suggested that this paper wasnot ready for external moderati<strong>on</strong>. In this respect <strong>the</strong> internal moderator maintainedthat “Some final adjustments still need to be completed” and “There is still somepolishing that needs to be d<strong>on</strong>e <strong>on</strong> this paper”. These two remarks were madeagainst <strong>the</strong> backdrop <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper being fully approved.Marking Memorandum:Q3.1.4 appeared in <strong>the</strong> memorandum but not in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper. Calculati<strong>on</strong>s inQ2.4.1 were incorrect and <strong>the</strong>refore needed attenti<strong>on</strong>. The accuracy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ranges in <strong>the</strong>graph in Q4.2.1 and 4.2.2 needed attenti<strong>on</strong>. Numbering and answers for Q3.4.2 and 3.4.3needed to be checked against <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper. One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> labels in Q4.1.1 was I but<strong>the</strong> memorandum labelled it J. This needed <strong>the</strong> examiners’ attenti<strong>on</strong>.Language and bias:Grammar in Q1.3.3, 2.2.3, 2.4, 3.1.1, 3.3.2, and 4.4 needed <strong>the</strong> attenti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examiners.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.22. AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES P1 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> aspects:Some secti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Instructi<strong>on</strong>s and Informati<strong>on</strong> to candidates could be improved by <strong>the</strong>panel <strong>of</strong> examiners. Attenti<strong>on</strong> should be given to instructi<strong>on</strong>s 2, 3, 4 and 8. The quality <strong>of</strong> diagrams 1.1.5, 2.1, 3.2, 3.4, 4.1 and 4.4 could be improved by betterlabelling, making diagrams clearer and preventing <strong>the</strong> words from fading. The incorrect f<strong>on</strong>t was used in some secti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> memorandumMarking memorandum:The memorandum did not indicate <strong>the</strong> LOs and Ass, but <strong>the</strong>se were clearly indicated in<strong>the</strong> analysis grid. Calculati<strong>on</strong>s in Q2.2.2 were incorrect and <strong>the</strong>refore needed attenti<strong>on</strong>. Incorrect f<strong>on</strong>ts had been used in <strong>the</strong> answers to <strong>the</strong> following questi<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong>memorandum: Q3.2.3, 3.4.2, 4.1.2, 4.2.4, 4.3.4 and 4.4.380
An incorrect capti<strong>on</strong> appeared in <strong>the</strong> memorandum for Q3.2.1 in comparis<strong>on</strong> with<strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>. Capti<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> memorandum for answers to Q3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.1.5, 4.2.2, 4.2.4 and 4.3.1needed to be included for <strong>the</strong> sake <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sistency.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper and <strong>the</strong> memorandum had a number <strong>of</strong> inc<strong>on</strong>sistencies in terms <strong>of</strong>good quality moderati<strong>on</strong> with regard to incorrect calculati<strong>on</strong>s in Q2.2.2 and 2.1 requiredbetter labelling <strong>of</strong> E and Rectum. The quality <strong>of</strong> diagrams in Q3.4, 4.1 and 4.4 needed tobe improved.The summary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> internal moderator’s <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> under Marking memo, <str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteriaand Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper suggested that this paper was not ready for externalmoderati<strong>on</strong>.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum were approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d externalmoderati<strong>on</strong>.23. AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES P2 NOV ‘12Finding:This paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.24. AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES P2 MAR ‘13Finding:This paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.25. AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY NOV ‘12The overall impressi<strong>on</strong> was that <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper was unfair and invalid and not reliablefor measuring <strong>the</strong> competency <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Agricultural Technology candidates. Therefore,based <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> following areas, it did not meet <strong>the</strong> required minimum standard for <strong>the</strong> NSCExaminati<strong>on</strong>: The pictures and illustrati<strong>on</strong>s were <strong>of</strong> poor quality which would have a negativeimpact <strong>on</strong> candidates’ performance.81
Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s from <strong>the</strong> 2011 questi<strong>on</strong> papers were repeated in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>paper and <strong>the</strong>re was also repetiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> some questi<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> current paper. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s were still ambiguous and still needed to be rephrased/red<strong>on</strong>eto make <strong>the</strong>m clearer to candidates. An appropriate f<strong>on</strong>t needed to be applied correctly throughout <strong>the</strong> whole questi<strong>on</strong>paper (technical aspects).Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.26. AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY MAR ‘13Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.27. BUSINESS STUDIES NOV ‘12Finding:This paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong>.28. BUSINESS STUDIES MAR ‘13 There were language and grammar errors in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum.More alternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses were required in <strong>the</strong> marking guideline. Errors were still found at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d and third moderati<strong>on</strong>s.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> fourth moderati<strong>on</strong>.29. CIVIL TECHNOLOGY NOV ‘12Calculati<strong>on</strong> errors were found in Q2.5.2 and 4.3 in <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum. Somequesti<strong>on</strong>s needed to be changed and rephrased.82
Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.30. CIVIL TECHNOLOGY MAR ‘13Changes to some questi<strong>on</strong>s were recommended.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.31. COMPUTER APPLICATIONS TECHNOLOGY (CAT)P1 NOV 12C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The paper covered LO2 while <strong>on</strong>ly covering a small bit <strong>of</strong> LO1. The SAG for CAT does notprovide guidance <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> exact weighting.LO1 LO2 LO3Norm%Not prescribedExaminer % 3,5 96,5 0<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 3,5 96,5 0According to <strong>the</strong> external moderator, <strong>the</strong> combined weighting <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> three comp<strong>on</strong>ents,that is, practical, <strong>the</strong>ory and PAT, should correlate with <strong>the</strong> norm given in <strong>the</strong> table above.As <strong>the</strong> practical paper and PAT were almost aligned to LO2, <strong>the</strong> weighting for <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>orypaper would thus be biased towards LO1 and LO3. Individual papers might <strong>the</strong>refore notc<strong>on</strong>form to <strong>the</strong> specified norm.Cognitive skills:The paper was found to be balanced in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive skills.Level 1 Level 2 Level 3Norm % 30 40 30Examiner % 28,5 42 29,5<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 30,5 40 29,583
Marking memorandum:The majority <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s had accurate answers. However, in Q4.6 <strong>the</strong> external moderatorsdid not c<strong>on</strong>cur with <strong>the</strong> answer provided.Language and bias:Some suggesti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> rewording instructi<strong>on</strong>s and questi<strong>on</strong>s were made so as to improve<strong>the</strong> readability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> instructi<strong>on</strong>s/questi<strong>on</strong>s.The questi<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> paper could not be tested using open-source packages running in aLinux envir<strong>on</strong>ment, as <strong>the</strong> DBE still does not provide <strong>the</strong> necessary equipment to checkthat <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s can be answered. Although <strong>the</strong>re should be no problems, <strong>the</strong> externalmoderators were not prepared to guarantee that <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s could be adequatelyanswered by those candidates using Linux and OpenOffice/LibreOffice.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum were approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d externalmoderati<strong>on</strong>.32. COMPUTER APPLICATIONS TECHNOLOGY P1 MAR‘13C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The paper covered LO2 with a small bit <strong>of</strong> coverage <strong>of</strong> LO1. The SAG for CAT does notprovide guidance <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> exact weighting.LO1 LO2 LO3Norm %Not prescribedExaminer % 2,5 97,5 0<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 2,5 97,5 0Cognitive skills:The table shows that <strong>the</strong> weighting for <strong>the</strong> middle order was outside <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> expectednorm.Level 1 Level 2 Level 3Norm % 30 40 30Examiner % 30 43 27<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 27 46 2784
The SAG does not provide an expected norm.Marking memorandum:The majority <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s had accurate answers. There were, however, a few questi<strong>on</strong>swhere external moderators did not c<strong>on</strong>cur with <strong>the</strong> panel <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> answers provided. Thesewere Q2.3, 3.3, 5.3 and 6.4.2. Answers to Q3.4 and 6.4.2 seemed not to answer <strong>the</strong>questi<strong>on</strong> asked correctly.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:The paper fell slightly outside <strong>the</strong> expected cognitive norms.Finding:The paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved and had to be resubmitted for fur<strong>the</strong>r moderati<strong>on</strong>.It was approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong>.33 & 34. COMPUTER APPLICATIONS TECHNOLOGY P2NOV ’12 & MAR ‘13C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The paper covered three LOs with greater emphasis <strong>on</strong> LO1.LO1 LO2 LO3Norm %Not prescribedExaminer % 81 18 1<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 81 18 1Cognitive skills:Level 1 Level 2 Level 3Norm % 30 40 30Examiner% 29,3 41,3 29,3<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 29,3 41,3 29,3Marking memorandum:There were some cases in which <strong>the</strong> memorandum did not agree with <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper.More alternatives should be added.Finding:At <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum were c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>allyapproved, to be resubmitted for fur<strong>the</strong>r moderati<strong>on</strong>.85
Although all <strong>the</strong> criteria had been met, <strong>the</strong>re were a number <strong>of</strong> changes to questi<strong>on</strong>s and<strong>the</strong> memorandum that had been suggested, and <strong>the</strong>y needed to be checked by <strong>the</strong>external moderator.It would be appropriate for <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d submissi<strong>on</strong> to be d<strong>on</strong>e after <strong>the</strong> translati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>paper into Afrikaans so that <strong>the</strong> Afrikaans and English papers could be compared andchecked.Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The paper covered three LOs with greater emphasis <strong>on</strong> LO1.LO1 LO2 LO3Norm %Not prescribedExaminer % 81 18 1<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 81 18 1The practical paper and PAT were almost aligned to LO2 and LO3. The weighting for <strong>the</strong><strong>the</strong>ory paper would thus be biased towards LO1.Cognitive skills:Level 1 Level 2 Level 3Norm % 30 40 30Examiner % 30 43 27<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 29 44 27 The SAG does not provide an expected norm. A few minor changes were suggested. Finding: The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong>.86
35. CONSUMER STUDIES NOV ‘12First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The numbering was not correct, mark allocati<strong>on</strong>s were not clearly indicated and markallocati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> paper was not <strong>the</strong> same as in <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:A more rigorous approach was suggested by <strong>the</strong> external moderators.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:There was no correlati<strong>on</strong> am<strong>on</strong>g mark allocati<strong>on</strong>, level <strong>of</strong> difficulty and time allocati<strong>on</strong>.Cognitive skills:There were too many remembering questi<strong>on</strong>s in Q1 and too few in Q2, 4 and 5, whichwould put <strong>the</strong> weaker candidates at a disadvantage.Level 1 Level 2 Level 3Norm % 30 50 20Actual % 36,5 34 29,5Deviati<strong>on</strong> at all levels was greater than <strong>the</strong> norm.Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>Cognitive skills:The distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels was now within acceptable range.Level 1 Level 2 Level 3Norm % 30 50 20Actual % 31 47 22Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.87
36. CONSUMER STUDIES MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The numbering not correct; mark allocati<strong>on</strong>s were not clearly indicated; <strong>the</strong> markallocati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> paper was not <strong>the</strong> same as in <strong>the</strong> memo.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:There was no correlati<strong>on</strong> am<strong>on</strong>g mark allocati<strong>on</strong>, level <strong>of</strong> difficulty and time allocati<strong>on</strong>.There were too many remembering questi<strong>on</strong>s in Q1, too few in Q2, 4 and 5 – this wouldhave put <strong>the</strong> weaker candidates and a disadvantage.Cognitive skills:Level 1 Level 2 Level 3Norm % 30 50 20Actual % 32,5 50 17,5Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.37. DANCE STUDIES NOV ’12There were a few minor discrepancies that would have to be corrected. No Afrikaanstranslati<strong>on</strong> was available. The questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum were approved at <strong>the</strong>first moderati<strong>on</strong>.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum were approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>. The Englishversi<strong>on</strong> complied in all respects, but <strong>the</strong> Afrikaans versi<strong>on</strong> still needed to be submitted formoderati<strong>on</strong> and comparis<strong>on</strong>.38. DANCE STUDIES MAR ‘13Finding:At first moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum were approved. The Englishversi<strong>on</strong> complied in all respects, but <strong>the</strong> Afrikaans versi<strong>on</strong> still needed to be submitted formoderati<strong>on</strong> and comparis<strong>on</strong>.88
39 & 40. DESIGN P1 AND P2 NOV ‘12Both papers were approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.41. DESIGN P1 MAR ‘13The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.42. DRAMATIC ARTS NOV ‘12<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The paper was not candidate friendly: titles needed to be above <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> ra<strong>the</strong>r than<strong>on</strong> a different page; <strong>the</strong> paper could not be completed in <strong>the</strong> allocated time; <strong>the</strong> quality<strong>of</strong> pictures needed attenti<strong>on</strong>; <strong>the</strong> pictures were compressed and as a result appeareddistorted; details were fudged; and <strong>the</strong> dark background made it difficult to see <strong>the</strong> stagespace.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:There was limited compliance. There was disjuncture between <strong>the</strong> findings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> externalmoderators and those <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> internal moderator. The <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> accepted questi<strong>on</strong>s which didnot reflect balanced levels <strong>of</strong> difficulty and complexity in relati<strong>on</strong> to <strong>the</strong> policy document.Rigorous guidance was absent regarding items and <strong>the</strong> overall standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> items.There were errors in <strong>the</strong> grid and evidence <strong>of</strong> bias in <strong>the</strong> phrasing <strong>of</strong> certain items and in<strong>the</strong> marking memorandum, although <strong>the</strong>se were approved by <strong>the</strong> internal moderator.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:There was limited compliance. There were also problems with <strong>the</strong> grid which proveddifficult to read and had omissi<strong>on</strong>s. Although new grid format had been supplied to <strong>the</strong>panel in 2011 this was not implemented. Examiners were warned not to shift <strong>the</strong> focus <strong>of</strong>questi<strong>on</strong>s from Dramatic Arts to cultural studies.Cognitive skills:The external moderators were <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> view that <strong>the</strong> spread <strong>of</strong> cognitive skills was uneven. Itwas difficult to identify <strong>the</strong> focus <strong>of</strong> some questi<strong>on</strong>s. In additi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>the</strong> format <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> gridmade it difficult to check how <strong>the</strong> weighting was distributed.89
Marking memorandum:The rubrics, though focused <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> answer, did not give sufficient c<strong>on</strong>tentfocus and <strong>the</strong>y remained generic. Clues <strong>on</strong> how marks would be distributed were notindicated. Some answers did not relate to what was actually asked in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>.Language and bias:The phrasing <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s was sometimes c<strong>on</strong>fusing or dense. Some questi<strong>on</strong>s were tool<strong>on</strong>g or did not relate to <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>. There was also evidence <strong>of</strong> proselytising andadvocacy in questi<strong>on</strong>s related to IKS and cultural performance. This could exclude somecandidates.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:The quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper had been compromised by <strong>the</strong> reducti<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> DBEpanel members from 5 to 3. Selecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> experienced and critical practiti<strong>on</strong>ers wasrecommended.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.43. DRAMATIC ARTS MAR ‘13First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria: The numbering, mark allocati<strong>on</strong> and instructi<strong>on</strong>s lacked clarity. Thequality <strong>of</strong> pictures needed attenti<strong>on</strong>. Details in <strong>on</strong>e picture were fudged and <strong>the</strong> darkbackground made it difficult to see <strong>the</strong> stage space.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:There was limited compliance. There was disjuncture between <strong>the</strong> findings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> externalmoderator’s and <strong>the</strong> internal moderator’s <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s. The internal moderator acceptedquesti<strong>on</strong>s that did not reflect balanced levels <strong>of</strong> difficulty and complexity in relati<strong>on</strong> to <strong>the</strong>policy document. There was no rigorous guidance regarding items and <strong>the</strong> overallstandard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> items. There were errors and omissi<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> grid. There was evidence <strong>of</strong>bias in <strong>the</strong> phrasing <strong>of</strong> certain items and in <strong>the</strong> memo, although <strong>the</strong>se had beenapproved.90
Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:There was compliance in most respects and <strong>the</strong>re was better coverage in this paper.Suggesti<strong>on</strong>s to change <strong>the</strong> format <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> grid were made.Cognitive skills:There was a better spread <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels and balance <strong>of</strong> difficulty and complexity.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.44. ECONOMICS NOV ‘12<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The carto<strong>on</strong> in Q2.3 needed to be revisited and shapes had to be inserted for clarity. Q1.2needed to be revised.Cognitive skills:The distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels was not appropriate.Level 1 Level 2 Level 3Norm % 30 40 30Actual % 30 42 28<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 32 38 30Marking memorandum: It did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d with <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper.Language and bias:There were subtleties in grammar that might create c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>. The level and complexity <strong>of</strong>vocabulary was not appropriate.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.91
45. ECONOMICS MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The labelling <strong>of</strong> graphs was incomplete in Q2.4.Cognitive skills:The distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels was not appropriate. Marks were not distributedcorrectly.Marking memorandum:The memo did not make adequate provisi<strong>on</strong> for additi<strong>on</strong>al/alternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses.Language and bias: There was limited compliance. Subject terminology was not usedcorrectly; <strong>the</strong> language register was not appropriate for <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> candidates; <strong>the</strong>rewere subtleties in grammar that might create c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.46. ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY NOV ‘12Cognitive skills:Level 1 Level 2 Level 3Norm % 30 50 20Actual % 29,5 45,5 25Finding:This paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.47. ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY MAR ‘13Level 1 Level 2 Level 3Norm % 30 50 20Actual % 29,5 50,5 20Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.92
48 & 49. ENGINEERING GRAPHICS & DESIGN P1AND P2 NOV ‘12The illustrati<strong>on</strong>s, graphs, tables, etc. were not print-ready.Finding:Both papers were c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved. No resubmissi<strong>on</strong> was required. The internalmoderator was required to ensure that c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised in <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> were addressed.50 & 51. ENGINEERING GRAPHICS & DESIGN P1 ANDP2 MAR ‘13Minor editorial correcti<strong>on</strong>s had to be made to both questi<strong>on</strong> papers.Finding:At first moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers were c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved, but did not have tobe resubmitted for fur<strong>the</strong>r moderati<strong>on</strong>.52. ENGLISH FAL P1 NOV ‘12Some questi<strong>on</strong>s needed to be revised or rephrased so that <strong>the</strong>y were clearer. In twoinstances terminology might prove challenging for FAL candidates. A suggesti<strong>on</strong> wasmade to ei<strong>the</strong>r find simpler syn<strong>on</strong>yms or provide a glossary at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> passages.Cognitive skills:Two tax<strong>on</strong>omies were used: Barrett’s for Secti<strong>on</strong> A and B and Bloom’s for Secti<strong>on</strong> C.A B CNorm % 40 40 20Secti<strong>on</strong> A % 43.3 36,7 20Secti<strong>on</strong> B % 40 40 20Secti<strong>on</strong> C % 40 37,5 22,5The paper was balanced in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels. In Q1.2.2 <strong>the</strong> cognitive level seemedto be pitched slightly higher due to <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>.93
Marking memorandum:The memorandum was generally compliant. However, <strong>the</strong>re were a few instances wherealternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses needed to be c<strong>on</strong>sidered.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.53. ENGLISH FAL P1 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The date <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> cover page needed to be changed. Minor technicalities had to beattended to.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:Secti<strong>on</strong> A required <strong>on</strong>e open-ended questi<strong>on</strong>.Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>Cognitive skills:There was an appropriate distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels.A B CNorm % 40 40 20Secti<strong>on</strong> A % 40 40 20Secti<strong>on</strong> B % 40 40 20Secti<strong>on</strong> C % 40 37,5 22,5Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.54. ENGLISH FAL P2 NOV ‘12First moderati<strong>on</strong>Minor technical errors were picked up.94
Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>The layout <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper was candidate-friendly and most technical problems werecorrected, with just a few more still needing to be corrected. The grid needed reworking(secti<strong>on</strong> C).The distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels was acceptable. However, fur<strong>the</strong>r suggesti<strong>on</strong>s weremade to c<strong>on</strong>sider a few <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> poetry questi<strong>on</strong>s in Secti<strong>on</strong> D and pull <strong>the</strong>m up to a highercognitive level.The paper was generally <strong>of</strong> a good standard. A suggesti<strong>on</strong> was made to c<strong>on</strong>siderchanging some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s in Secti<strong>on</strong> D into evaluati<strong>on</strong> and/or appreciati<strong>on</strong>questi<strong>on</strong>s so that <strong>the</strong>ir cognitive demand was slightly elevated.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.55. ENGLISH FAL P2 MAR ‘13First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Minor technical errors were picked up.Cognitive skills:Not all choice questi<strong>on</strong>s were <strong>of</strong> an equal level <strong>of</strong> difficulty. There were a few cases where<strong>the</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels was not appropriate. Two <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>textualquesti<strong>on</strong>s (novel) were too easy. A suggesti<strong>on</strong> was made to reword <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s andpitch <strong>the</strong>m at higher cognitive levels.Marking memorandum:There were a few instances where <strong>the</strong>re was very little synergy between <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> andresp<strong>on</strong>ses in <strong>the</strong> memo.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was not fair, valid or reliable in some respects.95
Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Q6.1.3 and Q6.1.4 were omitted <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper but were <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> computer screen.Marking memorandum:The memo was not accurate and did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d with <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper in someinstances.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong>.56. ENGLISH FAL P3 NOV ‘12There were some instances where <strong>the</strong> mark allocati<strong>on</strong> was not correctly aligned with <strong>the</strong>questi<strong>on</strong> paper. Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was meticulous.A few amendments to some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s were suggested. The visual in Q1.8.1 neededto be replaced because parts <strong>of</strong> it were unclear and could be c<strong>on</strong>fusing to candidates.Q2.2 might be misunderstood by candidates and could be c<strong>on</strong>fusing and misleading tosome cultural groups.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.57. ENGLISH FAL P3 MAR ‘13First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:There were a few instances where <strong>the</strong> mark allocati<strong>on</strong> was not aligned to <strong>the</strong> paper.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:Meticulous internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was acknowledged.96
C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:Only a few amendments needed to be made to some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s. Q1.6 had to berephrased as it was a bit c<strong>on</strong>fusing; Q2.3 needed to be revised; some minor technicalitieshad to be attended to in Q3.1.Marking memorandum:The memo was generally compliant, although a few correcti<strong>on</strong>s had to be made.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.58. ENGLISH HL P1 NOV ‘12First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Text D was not a suitable choice as it was not relevant to <strong>the</strong> candidates. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong>black and white advertisement did nothing to show <strong>the</strong> impact <strong>the</strong> advert had <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>reader. Lower-order questi<strong>on</strong>s had been asked.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:There was no evidence <strong>of</strong> qualitative moderati<strong>on</strong>, that is, choice <strong>of</strong> texts, types <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>and related matters. The quality, standard and relevance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderator’s input wererelevant in so far as technical and grammatical errors were c<strong>on</strong>cerned.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:There was compliance in most respects except for Q3.4 and 3.6 as a result <strong>of</strong> choice <strong>of</strong>texts that did not allow for creative resp<strong>on</strong>ses. Questi<strong>on</strong>ing techniques resulted in a largemajority <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s being in <strong>the</strong> lower order.Cognitive skills:The quality and strength <strong>of</strong> most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s were inappropriate for a home languagepaper/candidate. The quality <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s had been compromised by <strong>the</strong> choice <strong>of</strong> textsas well as <strong>the</strong> examiners’ inability to vary questi<strong>on</strong>ing techniques.Marking memorandum:Certain answers did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d with <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper. Answers to afew questi<strong>on</strong>s were not adequately provided in <strong>the</strong> memo.Language and bias:97
While passages were <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> stipulated length, <strong>the</strong> level and complexity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> vocabularywas for <strong>the</strong> most part far too simplistic for HL candidates.Predictability:There was compliance in all respects except in Q8.3. The paper had exactly <strong>the</strong> samepattern <strong>of</strong> presentati<strong>on</strong> as <strong>the</strong> last four years. Although <strong>the</strong> format was highly predictable itc<strong>on</strong>formed to <strong>the</strong> requirements. It would be refreshing to have a change in <strong>the</strong> formatwhile still adhering to <strong>the</strong> guidelines.The following were recommended for <strong>the</strong> choice <strong>of</strong> texts: Depth <strong>of</strong> meaning <strong>the</strong> text <strong>of</strong>fered. Whe<strong>the</strong>r texts c<strong>on</strong>veyed bias and if deliberately included should provide for thoughtprovoking,higher-order questi<strong>on</strong>s. Whe<strong>the</strong>r vocabulary was appropriate for <strong>the</strong> HL candidate/paper. Sufficient c<strong>on</strong>tent informati<strong>on</strong> and language complexities that lent <strong>the</strong>mselves to avariety <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s addressing various cognitive levels. Original and innovative written and visual texts.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:There was limited compliance. The choice <strong>of</strong> texts and <strong>the</strong> resultant limitati<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong>asking good questi<strong>on</strong>s compromised <strong>the</strong> standard and quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper.Finding:This paper was rejected at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>, but approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong>.59. ENGLISH HL P1 MAR ‘13First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Texts B and D were not clear in terms <strong>of</strong> ei<strong>the</strong>r illustrati<strong>on</strong>s or in text and <strong>the</strong>y both neededto be replaced. In Text B, <strong>the</strong> carto<strong>on</strong> was misplaced as it did not relate in any way to <strong>the</strong>c<strong>on</strong>tent <strong>of</strong> Text A and did not link up in meaning to Text A. Questi<strong>on</strong>s based <strong>on</strong> Text B wereall language related, thus defeating <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> assessing comprehensi<strong>on</strong> skills. Text D:This was a reas<strong>on</strong>ably good choice; however, <strong>the</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> advert was lost in <strong>the</strong>shades <strong>of</strong> black and white. Lower-order questi<strong>on</strong>s had been asked.98
Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:There was no evidence <strong>of</strong> qualitative moderati<strong>on</strong>, that is, choice <strong>of</strong> texts, types <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>and related matters. The quality, standard and relevance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderator’s input wererelevant in so far as technical and grammatical errors were c<strong>on</strong>cerned.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:There was compliance in most respects except for Q3.4 and 3.6. The choice <strong>of</strong> texts didnot allow for creative resp<strong>on</strong>ses. Moreover, questi<strong>on</strong>ing techniques used resulted in alarge majority <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s being in <strong>the</strong> lower order.Cognitive skills:The quality and strength <strong>of</strong> most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s were inappropriate for a HLpaper/candidate. The quality <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s had been compromised by <strong>the</strong> choice <strong>of</strong> textsas well as inability to vary questi<strong>on</strong>ing techniques.Language and bias:While <strong>the</strong> passages were <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> stipulated length, Texts B, D and E was far too simplistic forHL candidates.Predictability:The paper had exactly <strong>the</strong> same pattern <strong>of</strong> presentati<strong>on</strong> as <strong>the</strong> last four years. Although<strong>the</strong> format was highly predictable, it c<strong>on</strong>formed to <strong>the</strong> requirements. It would berefreshing to have a change in <strong>the</strong> format while still adhering to <strong>the</strong> guidelines.The following were recommended for <strong>the</strong> choice <strong>of</strong> texts: Depth <strong>of</strong> meaning <strong>the</strong> text <strong>of</strong>fers. Whe<strong>the</strong>r texts have bias and, if deliberately included, should provide for thoughtprovoking,higher-order questi<strong>on</strong>s. Vocabulary appropriate to <strong>the</strong> HL candidate/paper. Sufficient c<strong>on</strong>tent informati<strong>on</strong> and language complexities that lend <strong>the</strong>mselves to avariety <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s addressing various cognitive levels. Original and innovative written and visual texts.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:Limited compliance. Choice <strong>of</strong> texts and <strong>the</strong> resultant limitati<strong>on</strong>s in terms <strong>of</strong> asking goodquesti<strong>on</strong>s compromised <strong>the</strong> standard and quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper.99
Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Text D – The original advertisement had to be presented, as adaptati<strong>on</strong>s created adegree <strong>of</strong> distorti<strong>on</strong>.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:There were a few instances where <strong>the</strong>re was no correlati<strong>on</strong> between <strong>the</strong> mark allocati<strong>on</strong>,level <strong>of</strong> difficulty and time allocati<strong>on</strong>.Marking memorandum:There were a few instances <strong>of</strong> mismatch between questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memo. Summarypoints required review.Predictability:Some texts lacked innovati<strong>on</strong>.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:A substantially improved paper in terms <strong>of</strong> choice <strong>of</strong> texts and level <strong>of</strong> complexity. Q1, 2and 5 were <strong>of</strong> comparable standard, but Q3 and 4 compromised <strong>the</strong> standard.Third moderati<strong>on</strong>All recommendati<strong>on</strong>s and changes were addressed; minor changes had to be attendedto by <strong>the</strong> internal moderator.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong>, and did nothave to be submitted for fur<strong>the</strong>r moderati<strong>on</strong>.60. ENGLISH HL P2 NOV ‘12C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:There was limited compliance. Questi<strong>on</strong>s for Secti<strong>on</strong>s B & C did not address <strong>the</strong> variety <strong>of</strong>elements <strong>of</strong> literature study. Most questi<strong>on</strong>s covered plot and characterisati<strong>on</strong>.Cognitive skills:There was limited compliance. The quality and strength <strong>of</strong> most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s wereinappropriate for a home language paper and home language candidate. The quality <strong>of</strong>100
<strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s was compromised by choice <strong>of</strong> texts in certain books, but mostly <strong>the</strong> inabilityto vary <strong>the</strong> focus <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s.Marking memorandum:The marking memorandum required c<strong>on</strong>siderable revisi<strong>on</strong> owing to numerous changesthat needed to be made to Secti<strong>on</strong>s B and C.Predictability:The essay questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> O<strong>the</strong>llo was predictable. The paper showed no innovati<strong>on</strong>.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:There was no compliance. In view <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> changes that had to be effected in<strong>the</strong> novel secti<strong>on</strong>, it was recommended that c<strong>on</strong>textual questi<strong>on</strong>s for <strong>the</strong> three novelsshould be swapped. It was also recommended that essay questi<strong>on</strong>s for Pride andPrejudice, O<strong>the</strong>llo and The Crucible be swapped.Finding:This paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong> subject to <strong>the</strong> externalmoderators’ recommendati<strong>on</strong>s being addressed.61. ENGLISH HL P2 MAR ‘13The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was fair and <strong>of</strong> a good standard. It was apparent that <strong>the</strong> commentsmade in <strong>the</strong> first <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> in November 2012 had positively influenced <strong>the</strong> internalmoderati<strong>on</strong> process and <strong>the</strong> final outcome <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> and did not needto be submitted for fur<strong>the</strong>r moderati<strong>on</strong>.62. ENGLISH HL P3 NOV ‘12The paper lacked <strong>the</strong> following: Original, unique, stimulating, creative and innovative topics A variety/range <strong>of</strong> visual texts and topics A good and varied range <strong>of</strong> texts that could elicit creative resp<strong>on</strong>ses fromcandidates Topics that challenged <strong>the</strong> top 20% <strong>of</strong> candidates101
Topics <strong>of</strong> a higher cognitive order, and in Secti<strong>on</strong> B, topics <strong>on</strong> different genres.Secti<strong>on</strong> A: Of <strong>the</strong> nine topics set, <strong>on</strong>ly two were accepted.Secti<strong>on</strong> B: Of <strong>the</strong> four topics set, n<strong>on</strong>e were accepted.Secti<strong>on</strong> C: All three topics were accepted although topic 3.2 could be changed.Finding:The major part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper was <strong>the</strong>refore not approved. The panel was requested toreset almost <strong>the</strong> entire paper. The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong>.63. ENGLISH HL P3 MAR ‘13First moderati<strong>on</strong>The paper lacked <strong>the</strong> following: Original, unique, stimulating, creative and innovative topics Variety/range <strong>of</strong> visual texts and topics A good and varied range <strong>of</strong> texts that could elicit creative resp<strong>on</strong>ses fromcandidates Topics that would challenge <strong>the</strong> top 20% <strong>of</strong> candidates Topics <strong>of</strong> a higher cognitive order, and in Secti<strong>on</strong> B, topics <strong>on</strong> different genres.Secti<strong>on</strong> A: Of <strong>the</strong> nine topics set, <strong>on</strong>ly three were accepted.Secti<strong>on</strong> B: Of <strong>the</strong> four topics set, n<strong>on</strong>e were accepted.Secti<strong>on</strong> C: Of <strong>the</strong> three topics set, n<strong>on</strong>e were accepted.The major part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper was <strong>the</strong>refore not approved. The panel was requested toreset almost <strong>the</strong> entire paper.Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>Q1.3, 1.5 and 3.1 had to be reset; while Q3.2 had to be drastically revised.Third moderati<strong>on</strong>All recommendati<strong>on</strong>s had been implemented. New questi<strong>on</strong>s had been set wherenecessary. Some swaps in questi<strong>on</strong>s were made between <strong>the</strong> November and Marchpapers.102
Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong>.64. ENGLISH SAL P1 NOV ‘12Spelling errors had to be corrected and questi<strong>on</strong>s had to be rephrased.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.65. ENGLISH SAL P1 MAR ’13Some correcti<strong>on</strong>s to <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent were required.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.66. ENGLISH SAL P2 NOV ‘12Finding:This paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.67. ENGLISH SAL P2 MAR ‘13Finding:This questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.68. GEOGRAPHY P1 NOV ‘12First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The photographs and some illustrati<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> addendum were not clear nor were <strong>the</strong>yprint ready. Totals in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d with those in <strong>the</strong> marking103
memorandum, for example Q4. The total in <strong>the</strong> paper was 100 but 94 in <strong>the</strong> markingmemorandum. Some photographs/illustrati<strong>on</strong>s were not suitable as many requiredenlargement and appropriate labelling.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:Questi<strong>on</strong> 3 was heavily weighted with Grade 10 c<strong>on</strong>tent.Cognitive skills:Distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels was not appropriate, while distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong>cognitive skills appeared to be in line with guidelines. However, <strong>the</strong>re were too few higherorderquesti<strong>on</strong>s.Lower order Middle order Higher orderNorm % 30 40 30Actual % 34,5 48,5 17The distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks was not according to <strong>the</strong> norms and <strong>the</strong> mark distributi<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong>grid did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d with <strong>the</strong> marks in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper.Marking memorandum:The marking memorandum was inaccurate. Alternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses for certain questi<strong>on</strong>swere recommended.Language and bias:Certain questi<strong>on</strong>s needed to be rephrased. The panel was discouraged from usingobscure words.Predictability:Two questi<strong>on</strong>s were found to be replicas <strong>of</strong> those in <strong>the</strong> November 2011 and March 2012papers.Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>Cognitive skills:Distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive skills was now within an acceptable range.Lower order Middle order Higher orderNorm % 30 40 30Actual % 33,5 37,5 29104
Finding:The paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> and no resubmissi<strong>on</strong>was required. However, <strong>the</strong> internal moderator was required to ensure that c<strong>on</strong>cernsraised in <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> were addressed.69. GEOGRAPHY P1 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The quality <strong>of</strong> photographs was not satisfactory or print-ready. Some requiredenlargement and some amendment.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:Q4.4 was heavily weighted with Grade 10 c<strong>on</strong>tent.Cognitive skills:The distributi<strong>on</strong> was not in line with <strong>the</strong> SAG.Lower order Middle order Higher orderNorm % 30 40 30Actual % 29 48 23Marking memorandum:The memo was inaccurate. Some additi<strong>on</strong>al resp<strong>on</strong>ses were recommended and somewere recommended for replacement.Language and bias:The language register was inappropriate. Certain questi<strong>on</strong>s needed to be more directand <strong>the</strong>re was some gender bias in Q1.5.4.Predictability:There was repetiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s from <strong>the</strong> past three years’ questi<strong>on</strong> papers, for exampleQ1.3.6, which appeared in <strong>the</strong> 2011 paper.Finding:At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels had been corrected and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved, but did not need to be resubmitted for fur<strong>the</strong>rmoderati<strong>on</strong>.105
70. GEOGRAPHY P2 NOV ‘12First moderati<strong>on</strong>:<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The quality <strong>of</strong> photographs was not satisfactory or print-ready.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage: Photographs/illustrati<strong>on</strong>s were suitable, appropriate, relevant andacademically correct, but were not technically reliable.Cognitive skills:Distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels was in line with <strong>the</strong> SAG.Lower order Middle order Higher orderNorm % 30 40 30Actual % 29 39 32Marking memorandum:There was limited compliance. The marking memorandum was not accurate and it didnot corresp<strong>on</strong>d with <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper.Predictability:Basic map-work skills and standard calculati<strong>on</strong>s could in a sense be predicted as <strong>the</strong>y hadremained standard in <strong>the</strong> assessment <strong>of</strong> this secti<strong>on</strong>.Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>Cognitive skills:There was compliance in respect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels.Lower order Middle order Higher orderNorm % 30 40 30Actual % 29 44 29Finding:The paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> and no resubmissi<strong>on</strong>was required. The internal moderator was required to ensure that c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised in <strong>the</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> were addressed.106
71. GEOGRAPHY P2 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The quality <strong>of</strong> photographs was not satisfactory or print-ready.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:Photographs/illustrati<strong>on</strong>s were suitable, appropriate, relevant and academically correctbut were not technically reliable. The allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks deviated from <strong>the</strong> examguidelines.Cognitive skills:There was compliance in most respects.Lower order Middle order Higher orderNorm % 30 40 30Actual% 29 39 32The distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks was, however, not in accordance with <strong>the</strong> norms in respect <strong>of</strong> Q1and 2. Moreover, <strong>the</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks in <strong>the</strong> grid did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d with <strong>the</strong> marks in<strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper.Marking memorandum:There was limited compliance. The memo was inaccurate and did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d with<strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper.Language and bias:The language register was not appropriate for <strong>the</strong> candidates’ level and <strong>the</strong>re weresubtleties in grammar that might create c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>.Adherence to policies/guidelines:The current exam guidelines were not adhered to.Predictability:Basic map-work skills and standard calculati<strong>on</strong>s could in a sense be predicted as <strong>the</strong>yremained standard for <strong>the</strong> assessment <strong>of</strong> this secti<strong>on</strong>.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>, but did nothave to be resubmitted for fur<strong>the</strong>r moderati<strong>on</strong>.107
72 & 73. HISTORY P1 AND P2 NOV ‘12First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The phrasing <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s, compilati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking guidelines and selecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> specificsources still had to be addressed. Visual sources were not clear enough.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The paper did not adequately cover LOs and ASs.Cognitive skills:Some source-based questi<strong>on</strong>s needed to be adapted to address various higher orderskills.Marking memorandum:The marking memorandum was not accurate and did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d with <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>paper.Language and bias:The language register was not appropriate for <strong>the</strong> candidates’ level. There were somedifficult words that needed to be explained.Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>A few aspects such as phrasing <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s and compilati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marking guidelines stillneeded to be addressed. Some source-based questi<strong>on</strong>s and <strong>the</strong> grid had to be adapted,and <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum still needed adaptati<strong>on</strong>.Finding:Both papers were approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong> after all <strong>the</strong> external moderators’c<strong>on</strong>cerns and suggesti<strong>on</strong>s had been addressed.108
74. HISTORY P1 MAR ‘13First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The phrasing <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s, compilati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking guidelines and selecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> specificsources had to be addressed. Visual sources need to be clear with not too many darkgrey or black areas.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The paper did not adequately cover LOs and ASs.Cognitive skills:Some source-based questi<strong>on</strong>s needed to be adapted to address various higher orderskills.Marking memorandum:The memo was inaccurate and did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d with <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper.Language and bias:The language register was inappropriate and <strong>the</strong>re were some difficult words whichneeded to be explained.Adherence to policies/guidelines:The paper did not reflect <strong>the</strong> prescribed LOs and ASs. Moreover, <strong>the</strong> weighting andspread <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent were not appropriateSec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:A few aspects such as phrasing <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s and compilati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marking guidelines had tobe addressed.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:Some source-based questi<strong>on</strong>s had to be adapted and <strong>the</strong> grid also needed to bechanged.Marking memorandum:The memo needed adaptati<strong>on</strong>.109
Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong>.75. HISTORY P2 MAR ‘13First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Some visual sources were not clear and needed to be reformatted. The phrasing <strong>of</strong>questi<strong>on</strong>s, compilati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking guidelines and selecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> specific sources had tobe addressed.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The paper did not adequately cover LOs and ASs.Cognitive skills:Some source-based questi<strong>on</strong>s needed to be adapted to change <strong>the</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>percentages <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels and address various higher-order skills.Marking memorandum:The memo was not accurate and did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d with <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper.Language and bias:The language register was inappropriate and some difficult words were included.Adherence to policies/guidelinesThe paper did not reflect <strong>the</strong> prescribed LOs and ASs. The weighting and spread <strong>of</strong>c<strong>on</strong>tent were not appropriate.Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:A few aspects such as phrasing <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s and compilati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marking guidelines shouldbe addressed.110
C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:Some source-based questi<strong>on</strong>s had to be adapted and <strong>the</strong> grid also needed to bechanged.Marking memorandum:The memo needed adaptati<strong>on</strong>.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong>.76. HOSPITALITY STUDIES NOV ‘12First moderati<strong>on</strong>One picture needed to be replaced with <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> a better quality. There was a more than5% deviati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> knowledge and applicati<strong>on</strong> levels.Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>Cognitive skills:There was now compliance in respect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> cognitive skills.Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4Norm % 30 20 30 20Actual % 30,5 21,5 30 18Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.77. HOSPITALITY STUDIES MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Instructi<strong>on</strong>s to candidates were not clearly indicated. Certain questi<strong>on</strong>s needed to berephrasedInternal moderati<strong>on</strong>:Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was not vigorous enough and a few errors were overlooked.111
Cognitive skills:There was some slight deviati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels (4.1)Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4Norm% 30 20 30 20Actual% 31 24 25,5 19,5Marking memorandum:The memo was inaccurate; and <strong>the</strong> mark allocati<strong>on</strong> and mark distributi<strong>on</strong> in questi<strong>on</strong>swere incomplete.Predictability:Q2.3 was found to have been used in a recent paper.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.78. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY P1 NOV ‘12The paper covered LO4 while <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory paper covered LO1 to LO3.LO1 LO2 LO3 LO4Norm % 20 10 10 60Actual % 0 0 0 100According to <strong>the</strong> external moderator, <strong>the</strong> combined weighting <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> three comp<strong>on</strong>ents,that is, practical, <strong>the</strong>ory and PAT, should correlate with <strong>the</strong> norm given in <strong>the</strong> table above.The practical paper and <strong>the</strong> PAT were almost aligned to LO4. The weighting for <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>orypaper would thus be biased towards LO1 to LO3. Individual papers might <strong>the</strong>refore notc<strong>on</strong>form to <strong>the</strong> specified norm.Cognitive skillsLevel Level 1 Level 2 Level 3Norm 30 40 30Examiner 30 40,8 29,2<strong>Umalusi</strong> 17,5 48,5 34,2The external moderator menti<strong>on</strong>ed that although, as <strong>the</strong> table above suggests, <strong>the</strong>re wasa difference between <strong>the</strong> analysis d<strong>on</strong>e by <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> panel and that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>112
external moderators, <strong>the</strong>re was general agreement that <strong>the</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong> was satisfactory.The external moderators argued that <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> practicalexaminati<strong>on</strong> would be Level 2 and Level 3 questi<strong>on</strong>s. A practical examinati<strong>on</strong>, by its verynature, asks questi<strong>on</strong>s that require candidates to apply <strong>the</strong> skills <strong>the</strong>y have learnt.Language and bias: Some suggesti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> rewording <strong>of</strong> instructi<strong>on</strong>s and questi<strong>on</strong>swere made to improve <strong>the</strong> readability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se.Finding:The paper was well c<strong>on</strong>structed. However, some provisi<strong>on</strong> would have to be made forLinux users. The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>, although some minoralterati<strong>on</strong>s were still required. At <strong>the</strong> final moderati<strong>on</strong> most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> correcti<strong>on</strong>s had beend<strong>on</strong>e, although a few minor adjustments still required attenti<strong>on</strong>.79. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY P1 MAR ‘13Finding:There was compliance in all respects and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum wereapproved, although <strong>the</strong>re were still some minor errors to be corrected.At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> some minor errors were still found, although <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paperwas approved.80. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY P2 NOV ‘12First moderati<strong>on</strong>C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:There was compliance in most respects. However, <strong>the</strong>re were correcti<strong>on</strong>s to questi<strong>on</strong>s andissues <strong>of</strong> validity that needed to be addressed.Marking memorandum:There was compliance in most respects, although some correcti<strong>on</strong>s were required.Changes in questi<strong>on</strong>s would result in corresp<strong>on</strong>ding changes to <strong>the</strong> memo.Adherence to policies/guidelines:There was compliance in most respects, although ASs were not reflected.113
Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The paper covered LO4.LO1 LO2 LO3 LO4Norm % 20 10 10 60Examiner % 0 0 0 100<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 0 0 0 100The combined weighting <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> three comp<strong>on</strong>ents, that is, practical, <strong>the</strong>ory and PAT,should correlate with <strong>the</strong> norm given in <strong>the</strong> table above. The practical paper and PATwere almost aligned to LO4. The weighting for <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory paper would thus be biasedtowards LO1 to LO3. Individual papers may, <strong>the</strong>refore, not c<strong>on</strong>form to <strong>the</strong> specified norm.Cognitive skillsLevel Level 1 Level 2 Level 3Norm % 30 40 30Examiner % 25 51,7 23,3<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 25 51,7 23,3Finding:There was compliance in most respects. The questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum werec<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved but to be resubmitted for a sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>, as <strong>the</strong>re weresome suggesti<strong>on</strong>s that needed to be implemented and questi<strong>on</strong>s that needed rethinkingand possibly to be replaced.At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> it was found that all correcti<strong>on</strong>s and suggesti<strong>on</strong>s had beenimplemented. The Afrikaans (translated) versi<strong>on</strong> still had to be submitted, however. Forthat reas<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum were c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved, and hadto be resubmitted for fur<strong>the</strong>r moderati<strong>on</strong>.81. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY P2 MAR ’13First moderati<strong>on</strong>C<strong>on</strong>tent coverageLO1 LO2 LO3 LO4Norm % 20% 10% 10% 60%114
LO1 LO2 LO3 LO4Actual % 50% 8% 12% 31%Cognitive skillsLevel Level 1 Level 2 Level 3Norm % 30 40 30Actual % 41 42 17<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:There was compliance in most respects, although a number <strong>of</strong> minor changes to formathad to be made.Marking memorandum:There was compliance in most respects, although a few answers did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d with<strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper. Some questi<strong>on</strong>s needed to be reworded and coverage <strong>of</strong> LOs andASs had to be reviewed and entered in <strong>the</strong> memorandum.Finding:There was compliance in most respects. The questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum werec<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved, but had to be resubmitted for fur<strong>the</strong>r moderati<strong>on</strong>. The translatedquesti<strong>on</strong> paper should also had to be submitted for moderati<strong>on</strong>.The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.82, 83 & 84. ISINDEBELE FAL P1, P2 AND P3 NOV ‘12All three papers were approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.85, 86 & 87. ISINDEBELE FAL P1, P2 AND P3 MAR ‘13All three papers were approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.88, 89 & 90. ISINDEBELE HL P1, P2 AND P3 NOV ‘12All three papers were approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.115
91, 92 & 93. ISINDEBELE HL P1, P2 AND P3 MAR ‘13All three papers were approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.94 & 95. ISINDEBELE SAL P1 AND P2 NOV ‘12Both papers were approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.96 & 97. ISINDEBELE SAL P1 AND P2 MAR ‘13Both papers were approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.98. ISIXHOSA FAL P1 NOV ‘12First moderati<strong>on</strong>The carto<strong>on</strong> in Questi<strong>on</strong> 4 was not clear. The number <strong>of</strong> multiple-choice questi<strong>on</strong>s as wellas open-ended questi<strong>on</strong>s in each secti<strong>on</strong> was not as stipulated in <strong>the</strong> amendedexaminati<strong>on</strong> guidelines, as <strong>the</strong> paper had more questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> each type <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>menti<strong>on</strong>ed above than was prescribed. Answers provided for Q1.1.5 and 1.2.2 did notactually answer <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s asked. The answers to Q1.1.6 and 1.1.10 did not appear in<strong>the</strong> paragraph as directed.Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>The number <strong>of</strong> open-ended questi<strong>on</strong>s in each secti<strong>on</strong> exceeded <strong>the</strong> maximum prescribedin <strong>the</strong> amended examinati<strong>on</strong> guidelines. Answers provided for Q1.1.5 and 1.2.2 still did notanswer <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.116
99. ISIXHOSA FAL P1 MAR ‘13First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The number <strong>of</strong> multiple-choice questi<strong>on</strong>s and open-ended questi<strong>on</strong>s in each secti<strong>on</strong> wasnot as stipulated in <strong>the</strong> amended examinati<strong>on</strong> guidelines, as <strong>the</strong> paper c<strong>on</strong>tained more <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong>se questi<strong>on</strong>s than expected. The summary text needed to be corrected to suit <strong>the</strong>purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> and Q4.2 needed to be rephrased.Cognitive skills:Marks were not allocated according to <strong>the</strong> prescribed norm.Marking memorandum:The answers given for Q 1.1.15 and 1.2.2 were incorrect. The memo did not corresp<strong>on</strong>dwith <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper in respect <strong>of</strong> Q1.2.4.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:The paper was not valid. Changes also needed to be made to <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> multiplechoicequesti<strong>on</strong>s and open-ended questi<strong>on</strong>s so that <strong>the</strong>y would comply with <strong>the</strong>examinati<strong>on</strong> guidelines.Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The instructi<strong>on</strong> for Q3.3 was unclear and needed to be replaced.Marking memorandum:The memo was inaccurate and would not facilitate marking.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:The paper was not valid, fair or reliable and was not <strong>of</strong> an appropriate standard.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong>.117
100. ISIXHOSA FAL P2 NOV ‘12The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.101. ISIXHOSA FAL P2 MAR ‘13Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.102. ISIXHOSA FAL P3 NOV ‘12First moderati<strong>on</strong>:The memorandum was incomplete and some questi<strong>on</strong>s had to be changed as <strong>the</strong>y hadappeared in <strong>the</strong> November 2011 questi<strong>on</strong> paper, while o<strong>the</strong>rs were not in <strong>the</strong> assessmentguidelines. This paper was rejected at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>:The map in Q3.3 was unclear. The memorandum c<strong>on</strong>tained mistakes that needed to becorrected.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.103. ISIXHOSA FAL P3 MAR ‘13Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong>.104. ISIXHOSA HL P1 NOV ‘12Instructi<strong>on</strong>s to candidates were not clearly specified. The weighting and spread <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent<strong>of</strong> LOs and ASs were not appropriate. There was limited compliance in respect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>marking memorandum, which was also inaccurate, did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d with <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>118
paper, did not make allowance for alternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses and would not have facilitatedmarking.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.105. ISIXHOSA HL P1 MAR ‘13First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Instructi<strong>on</strong>s to candidates were not clearly specified. The quality <strong>of</strong> pictures wasinappropriateC<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The weighting and spread <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent <strong>of</strong> LOs and ASs were not appropriate.Marking memorandum:There was limited compliance. The memo was also inaccurate, did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d with<strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper, did not make allowance for alternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses, and would nothave facilitated marking.Adherence to policies/guidelines:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was not in line with current guideline documents.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:The paper was not fair, valid or reliable.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.106. ISIXHOSA HL P2 NOV ‘12Instructi<strong>on</strong>s to candidates were not clearly specified. The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was not fair,valid or reliable and was not <strong>of</strong> an appropriate standard.119
Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.107. ISIXHOSA HL P2 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Instructi<strong>on</strong>s to candidates were not clearly specified.Cognitive skills:There was no appropriate distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels.Marking memorandum:There was limited compliance, with evidence <strong>of</strong> inaccuracies and instances where <strong>the</strong>memo did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d with <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper. Moreover, it would not havefacilitated marking and alternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses were not accommodated.Predictability:The text used in Q8 was <strong>the</strong> same as in March 2010. The questi<strong>on</strong>s were also more or less<strong>the</strong> same.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.108. ISIXHOSA HL P3 NOV ‘12Instructi<strong>on</strong>s to candidates were not clearly specified. There was limited compliance inrespect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum, which was also inaccurate, did not corresp<strong>on</strong>dwith questi<strong>on</strong> paper, did not make allowance for alternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses and would nothave facilitated marking.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.120
109. ISIXHOSA HL P3 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Instructi<strong>on</strong>s to candidates were not clearly specified.Marking memorandum:Limited compliance – <strong>the</strong> memo was inaccurate and did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d with <strong>the</strong>questi<strong>on</strong> paper, did not make allowance for alternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses and would not havefacilitated marking.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong>.110. ISIXHOSA SAL P1 NOV ‘12Cognitive skills:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper and <strong>the</strong> memorandum needed to be corrected. There was nocorrelati<strong>on</strong> between mark allocati<strong>on</strong>, level <strong>of</strong> difficulty and time allocati<strong>on</strong>.Marking memorandum:There was limited compliance in respect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum. The memorandumwas inaccurate, did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d with <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper, did not make allowance foralternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses and would not have facilitated marking.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.111. ISIXHOSA SAL P1 MAR ‘13Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.112. ISIXHOSA SAL P2 NOV ‘12C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The picture in Q1.4 was not appropriate.121
Marking memorandum:The memorandum was inaccurate, did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d with questi<strong>on</strong> paper and wouldnot have facilitated marking. The external moderators argued that Q1.4 in <strong>the</strong> memo hadbeen described as a bank robbery and this could mislead markers as <strong>the</strong>re was no bankshown in <strong>the</strong> picture in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper, which just showed a robbery.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.113. ISIXHOSA SAL P2 MAR ‘13Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.114. ISIZULU FAL P1 NOV ‘12Cognitive skills:The cognitive levels in <strong>the</strong> grid had to be aligned and <strong>the</strong> summary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> overall paperrecalculated.Language and bias:The language register in Q1 and 2 needed to be t<strong>on</strong>ed down to <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> FALcandidates.Finding:The paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> and no resubmissi<strong>on</strong>was required. However, <strong>the</strong> internal moderator was required to ensure that c<strong>on</strong>cernsraised in <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> were addressed.115. ISIZULU FAL P1 MAR ‘13Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.122
116. ISIZULU FAL P2 NOV ‘12Cognitive skills:The analysis grid needed to be recalculated.Finding:The paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> and no resubmissi<strong>on</strong> wasrequired. However, <strong>the</strong> internal moderator was required to ensure that c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised in<strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> were addressed.117. ISIZULU FAL P2 MAR ‘13Cognitive skills:The analysis grid had to be adjusted.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved at <strong>the</strong> first external moderati<strong>on</strong>.118. ISIZULU FAL P3 NOV ‘12<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:There was compliance in most respects. However, <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> visuals needed to beimproved and <strong>the</strong>re were some technicalities that needed to be corrected.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s needed to be rephrased.Marking memorandum:The memo had to be aligned with <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper to facilitate marking.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.123
119. ISIZULU FAL P3 MAR ‘13Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum were approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.120. ISIZULU HL P1 NOV ‘12121. ISIZULU HL P1 MAR ‘13122. ISIZULU HL P2 NOV ‘12C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:There were questi<strong>on</strong>s that required rephrasing and replacement.Cognitive skills:The cognitive demand <strong>of</strong> some questi<strong>on</strong>s was not at <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> Grade 12.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum were approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.123. ISIZULU HL P2 MAR ‘13124. ISIZULU HL P3 NOV ‘12Finding:This paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.125. ISIZULU HL P3 MAR ‘13Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.124
126. ISIZULU SAL P1 NOV ‘12Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.127. ISIZULU SAL P1 MAR ‘13Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.128. ISIZULU SAL P2 NOV ‘12Finding:The paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> and no resubmissi<strong>on</strong> wasrequired. However, <strong>the</strong> internal moderator was required to ensure that <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cernsraised in <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> were addressed.129. ISIZULU SAL P2 MAR ‘13Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.130. LIFE SCIENCES P1: VERSION 1 NOV ‘12First moderati<strong>on</strong>:<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Rewording <strong>of</strong> instructi<strong>on</strong> no. 10 was suggested. The mark allocati<strong>on</strong> for Q2.2.3 was missingand several questi<strong>on</strong>s required rephrasing.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The paper did not adequately cover LOs and ASs as prescribed and <strong>the</strong> weighting <strong>of</strong> LOswas also not appropriate. More questi<strong>on</strong>s were required for LO1 and too many marks wereallocated to LO2.125
LO 1 LO 2 LO 3Norm % 45 90 15Examiner % 34 98 18<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 33,5 101 15,5Cognitive skills:There was compliance with requirements in respect <strong>of</strong> cognitive challenge. There was,however, a need to revisit some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s in order to meet <strong>the</strong> assessmentrequirements for <strong>the</strong> LOs.A B C DNorm % 45 45 30 30Examiner % 46 44 31 29<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 45,5 47,5 30,5 25,5Marking memorandum: There were some incorrect or incomplete answers in some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>questi<strong>on</strong>s.Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The diagram in Q1.1.3 was unclear. The source <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> diagram in Q4.2 needed to beacknowledged.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:Requirements for <strong>the</strong> knowledge areas, Life at <strong>the</strong> molecular, cellular and tissue level andDiversity, change and c<strong>on</strong>tinuity, were adequately addressed.Cognitive skills:The distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive skills was in keeping with <strong>the</strong> requirements.A B C DNorm % 45 45 30 30Examiner % 46 46 29 29<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 46,5 46,5 31 26Marking memorandum:Some incomplete answers were identified in <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum.126
Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:The paper still needed a little more work to bring it up to an acceptable level <strong>of</strong> quality.Third moderati<strong>on</strong>C<strong>on</strong>tent coverageLO 1 LO 2 LO 3Norm % 45 90 15Examiner % 41 91,5 18<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 40,5 101 15,5Cognitive skillsA B C DNorm % 45 45 30 30Examiner % 46 46 29 29<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 46,5 46,5 31 26Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong>.131. LIFE SCIENCES P1 VERSION 1 MAR 13First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Rewording was suggested for instructi<strong>on</strong> no. 10. Several questi<strong>on</strong>s required rephrasing.F<strong>on</strong>ts were not used c<strong>on</strong>sistently. Diagram B in Q2.4 needed attenti<strong>on</strong>.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The weighting <strong>of</strong> LOs was very close to <strong>the</strong> norm.LO 1 LO 2 LO 3Norm % 45 90 15Examiner % 46 91 13<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 43 93 14127
Cognitive skills:Distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels was inappropriate.A B C DNorm % 45 45 30 30Examiner % 41 49 33 27<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 34,5 52 31,5 32There was a need to increase questi<strong>on</strong>s assessing level A and decrease those assessinglevel B.Marking memorandum:Some incorrect or incomplete answers were identified, and some alternative answerswere included.Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:F<strong>on</strong>ts were not used c<strong>on</strong>sistently. The quality <strong>of</strong> illustrati<strong>on</strong>s and diagrams was notappropriate.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The weighting <strong>of</strong> LOs was very close to <strong>the</strong> norm.LO 1 LO 2 LO 3Norm % 45 90 15Examiner % 44 93 13<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 42 94 14Cognitive skills:The distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels was in close compliance with requirements.A B C DNorm % 45 45 30 30Examiner % 41 49 33 27<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 35,5 51 32,5 31Marking memorandum:There were a few instances <strong>of</strong> inaccuracy in <strong>the</strong> memo.128
Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong>.132. LIFE SCIENCES P2: VERSION 1 NOV ‘12First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Rewording <strong>of</strong> instructi<strong>on</strong> no. 10 was suggested and several questi<strong>on</strong>s needed rephrasing.Diagram and labelling lines needed to be improved in certain questi<strong>on</strong>s.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverageLO 1 LO 2 LO 3Norm % 45 90 15Examiner % 38 95 17<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 42,5 93,5 15,5Cognitive skillsA B C DNorm % 45 45 30 30Examiner % 42 52 28 28<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 45,5 47,5 24 32According to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderators’ analysis, <strong>the</strong> cognitive challenge was in keepingwith <strong>the</strong> norm as indicated in <strong>the</strong> guideline documents.Marking memorandum:Some incorrect or incomplete answers for some questi<strong>on</strong>s were identified in <strong>the</strong> markingmemorandum.Language and bias:Rephrasing <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s was necessary.129
Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The quality <strong>of</strong> diagrams and illustrati<strong>on</strong>s was not appropriate and not print-ready. Somequesti<strong>on</strong>s were incorrectly numbered in <strong>the</strong> weighting grid and changes were notappropriately effected.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverageLO 1 LO 2 LO 3Norm % 45 90 15Examiner % 43 91 16<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 40 94 15Cognitive skillsA B C DNorm % 45 45 30 30Examiner % 42 49 29 29<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 45,5 47 23,5 34While level C questi<strong>on</strong>s seemed low and level D higher than that set out in policy, when Cand D were combined an acceptable weighting was obtained.Marking memorandum:Incorrect or incomplete answers were identified for some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s.Third moderati<strong>on</strong>C<strong>on</strong>tent coverageLO 1 LO 2 LO 3Norm % 45 90 15Examiner % 37 97 16<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 39,5 94,5 16Cognitive skillsA B C DNorm % 45 45 30 30Examiner % 43 52 29 33<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 44,5 50,5 22,5 32,5130
Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong>.133. LIFE SCIENCES P2 VERSION 1 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The quality <strong>of</strong> diagrams and illustrati<strong>on</strong>s was not appropriate or print-ready – diagram andlabelling lines needed to be improved in Q1.1.6, 1.1.10, 2.1 (memo) and 3.5. Certainquesti<strong>on</strong>s needed attenti<strong>on</strong>.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:LO1 and LO2 had been adequately addressed. However LO3 was slightly under-assessed.LO 1 LO 2 LO 3Norm % 45 90 15Examiner % 45 94 11<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 46,5 95,5 10Cognitive skills:The cognitive challenge was in keeping with <strong>the</strong> norm.A B C DNorm % 45 45 30 30Examiner % 42 50 27 30<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 45 46 29 30Marking memorandum:The memo was inaccurate in a few cases – some incorrect or incomplete answers wereidentifiedLanguage and bias:Some rephrasing <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s was necessary.Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Several questi<strong>on</strong>s required rephrasing. The quality <strong>of</strong> illustrati<strong>on</strong>s and diagrams was notappropriate.131
C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:LO 1 LO 2 LO 3Norm % 45 90 15Examiner % 46 93 11<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 46,5 93,5 10Cognitive skills:The cognitive challenge was in keeping with <strong>the</strong> norm.A B C DNorm % 45 45 30 30Examiner % 41 50 27 32<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 44,5 45,5 29 31Marking memorandum:A few cases <strong>of</strong> inaccuracy were found in <strong>the</strong> memo; some alternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses wereincluded/suggested.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> third external moderati<strong>on</strong>.134. LIFE SCIENCES P1: VERSION 2 NOV ‘12First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:There were typos, wording errors and missing labels in certain questi<strong>on</strong>s. O<strong>the</strong>rwise <strong>the</strong>paper was <strong>of</strong> a generally good standard.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The science <strong>of</strong> certain words in some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s needed to be checked.Cognitive skills:The tax<strong>on</strong>omy that was used to classify cognitive demand was deemed loose. Theexternal moderator cauti<strong>on</strong>ed examiners to make sure that <strong>the</strong>y would be able to defend<strong>the</strong>ir classificati<strong>on</strong>s. External moderators’ classificati<strong>on</strong> gave too few higher order questi<strong>on</strong>sin Level C.132
A B C DNorm % 30 60 45 15Examiner % 25 63 45 17<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 38 63 34 15Marking memorandum:The marking memorandum was not accurate in respect <strong>of</strong> certain questi<strong>on</strong>s.Language and bias:Some questi<strong>on</strong>s would not have been accessible to English sec<strong>on</strong>d language speakers.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:The external moderators’ impressi<strong>on</strong> was that <strong>the</strong> paper was more difficult thancomparable papers owing to <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>re was more to read and that questi<strong>on</strong>swere less predictable than in previous years.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong>.135. LIFE SCIENCES P1: VERSION 2 MAR ‘13First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:There were typos, wording problems and missing labels in certain questi<strong>on</strong>s, o<strong>the</strong>rwise <strong>the</strong>paper was <strong>of</strong> a generally good standard.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The science <strong>of</strong> certain words in Q1.3.3 needed to be checked. Q1.4 is outside <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>syllabus. The mark allocati<strong>on</strong> for graphs differed between <strong>the</strong> four papers.Cognitive skills:The tax<strong>on</strong>omy used to classify cognitive demand was deemed loose and examiners werecauti<strong>on</strong>ed to make sure that <strong>the</strong>y would be able to defend <strong>the</strong>ir classificati<strong>on</strong>s. Theexternal moderator’s classificati<strong>on</strong> gave too few higher order questi<strong>on</strong>s in Level C.133
A B C DNorm % 30 60 45 15Examiner % 37 54 37 22<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 37 72 30 11Marking memorandum:The memo inaccurate in respect <strong>of</strong> certain questi<strong>on</strong>s.Language and bias:Some sophisticated language was used.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:The paper was found to be harder than comparable papers owing to <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>rewas more to read and that questi<strong>on</strong>s were less predictable than in previous years.Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>Cognitive skillsA B C DNorm % 30 60 45 15Examiner % 31 65 33 21<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 31 75,5 33,5 10The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was still not balanced. Cognitive demand had to be rec<strong>on</strong>sideredwhen changing questi<strong>on</strong>s.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> third external moderati<strong>on</strong>.136. LIFE SCIENCES P2: VERSION 2 NOV ‘12First moderati<strong>on</strong>:<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:There were typos, wording problems and missing labels in certain questi<strong>on</strong>s, o<strong>the</strong>rwise <strong>the</strong>paper was <strong>of</strong> a generally good standard.134
C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The science <strong>of</strong> certain words in some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s needed to be checked. Q4.1.2 wasfound to be outside <strong>the</strong> syllabus.Cognitive skills:The tax<strong>on</strong>omy that was used to classify cognitive demand was deemed loose. Theexternal moderator cauti<strong>on</strong>ed examiners to make sure that <strong>the</strong>y would be able to defend<strong>the</strong>ir classificati<strong>on</strong>s. The external moderators’ classificati<strong>on</strong> gave too few higher orderquesti<strong>on</strong>s in Level C.A B C DNorm % 30 60 45 15Examiner % 43 49 37 21<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 40 72 20 18Marking memorandum:The marking memorandum was inaccurate in respect <strong>of</strong> certain questi<strong>on</strong>s.Language and bias:Some questi<strong>on</strong>s would not be accessible to English sec<strong>on</strong>d language speakers.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:The external moderators’ impressi<strong>on</strong> was that <strong>the</strong> paper was more difficult thancomparable papers owing to <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>re was more to read and that questi<strong>on</strong>swere less predictable than in previous years. Although examiners had come up with someinteresting new questi<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>the</strong>re was a c<strong>on</strong>cern that <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent could be out <strong>of</strong> reach formany, especially English sec<strong>on</strong>d language learners.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.137. LIFE SCIENCES P2 VERSION 2 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:There were typos, wording problems and missing labels in certain questi<strong>on</strong>s, o<strong>the</strong>rwise <strong>the</strong>paper was <strong>of</strong> a generally good standard.135
C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The science <strong>of</strong> certain words in some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s needed to be checked. Q1.2.3,4.3.2 and 4.3.3 were outside syllabus. Mark allocati<strong>on</strong> for graphs differed am<strong>on</strong>g <strong>the</strong> fourpapers.Cognitive skills:The tax<strong>on</strong>omy used to classify cognitive demand was deemed loose and examiners werecauti<strong>on</strong>ed to make sure that <strong>the</strong>y would be able to defend <strong>the</strong>ir classificati<strong>on</strong>s. Theexternal moderators’ classificati<strong>on</strong> gave too few higher order questi<strong>on</strong>s in Level D.A B C DNorm % 30 60 45 15Examiner % 34 53 56 7<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 37 58 54 1Marking memorandum:The memo was inaccurate in respect <strong>of</strong> certain questi<strong>on</strong>s.Language and bias:Some questi<strong>on</strong>s would not be accessible to English sec<strong>on</strong>d language speakers.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:The external moderator’s impressi<strong>on</strong> was that <strong>the</strong> paper was harder than comparablepapers owing to <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>re was more to read and that questi<strong>on</strong>s were lesspredictable than in previous years. Although examiners had come up with someinteresting new questi<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>the</strong>re was a c<strong>on</strong>cern that <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent could be out <strong>of</strong> reach formany, especially English sec<strong>on</strong>d language learners.Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>Cognitive skills:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was still not balanced.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong>.136
138. MATHEMATICAL LITERACY P1 NOV ‘12<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The paper was not print-ready as some tables and diagrams required attenti<strong>on</strong>.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:There was over-testing <strong>of</strong> some ma<strong>the</strong>matical c<strong>on</strong>tent, as well as <strong>the</strong> omissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> someASs. LO1 was over-assessed.LO1 LO2 LO3 LO4Norm % 25 25 25 25Actual % 33 21 22 24Cognitive skills:The paper was not balanced in respect <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels.Level 1 Level 2Norm % 60 40Actual % 52 48There were a few questi<strong>on</strong>s where alternative soluti<strong>on</strong>s could be provided.C<strong>on</strong>texts were biased in favour <strong>of</strong> urban learners. Suggesti<strong>on</strong>s were made to removesuperfluous statements and phrases in a number <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s.Some questi<strong>on</strong>s were identified as being similar to those set in <strong>the</strong> November 2011 paper.There was some ma<strong>the</strong>matical c<strong>on</strong>tent that had been excluded. Moreover, <strong>the</strong> standard<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper did not compare favourably with previous papers. In additi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>the</strong> weighting<strong>of</strong> tax<strong>on</strong>omy levels did not adhere to <strong>the</strong> requirements.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.137
139. MATHEMATICAL LITERACY P1 MAR ’13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The numbering <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper required attenti<strong>on</strong>; some tables and diagramsrequired attenti<strong>on</strong>; and some instructi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> cover page required more detail to avoidc<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:The quality, standard and relevance <strong>of</strong> input from <strong>the</strong> internal moderator were notappropriate.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:One incorrect formula was given in <strong>on</strong>e questi<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong>re was over-testing <strong>of</strong> somema<strong>the</strong>matical skills. Some questi<strong>on</strong>s posed were too simplistic and not suitable for Grade12 learners.LO1 LO2 LO3 LO4Norm % 25% 25% 25% 25%Examiner % 25% 25% 25% 25%<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 26% 25% 23% 26%Cognitive skills:The weighting <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels did not adhere to <strong>the</strong> prescribed minimum requirements.Level 1 Level 2Norm % 60 40Examiner % 60 40<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 53 47Marking memorandum:Fur<strong>the</strong>r alternative soluti<strong>on</strong>s were identified and recommended; at least four errors werefound in <strong>the</strong> memo; and in some cases units <strong>of</strong> measure were omitted.Language bias:This was generally correct except for <strong>on</strong>e questi<strong>on</strong> which c<strong>on</strong>tained an incorrect formula.138
Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:There was limited compliance. The paper did not compare favourably with previouspapers and c<strong>on</strong>tained many questi<strong>on</strong>s that assessed similar ma<strong>the</strong>matical skills. Moreover,some questi<strong>on</strong>s were too simplistic and not suitable for a Grade 12 level.Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The paper adhered to <strong>the</strong> prescribed requirements.LO1 LO2 LO3 LO4Norm % 25 25 25 25Examiner % 25 25 28 22<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 25 25 28 22Cognitive skills:The range was acceptable.Level 1 Level 2Norm % 60 40Examiner % 58 42<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 58 42Finding:At <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was compliance in all respects and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper andmemorandum were approved. The Afrikaans versi<strong>on</strong> was also approved and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>paper was found to be <strong>of</strong> a good standard.140. MATHEMATICAL LITERACY P2 NOV ‘12First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The paper was not print-ready – some tables and diagrams still required attenti<strong>on</strong>.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The paper did not adequately cover LOs and ASs. The weighting and spread <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tentwere not appropriate, with too few LO2 questi<strong>on</strong>s. Level 1 questi<strong>on</strong>s were included eventhough not prescribed for this paper. Similar c<strong>on</strong>texts were used in two questi<strong>on</strong>s and139
<strong>the</strong>re was overlapping <strong>of</strong> similar questi<strong>on</strong>s in Paper 1. There was also over-testing <strong>of</strong> somema<strong>the</strong>matical c<strong>on</strong>tent. The phrasing <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s was inappropriately d<strong>on</strong>e.Diagrams and tables required attenti<strong>on</strong> and, finally, <strong>the</strong> length <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper wasinappropriate.LO1 LO2 LO3 LO4Norm % 25 25 25 25Examiner % 26 19 30 25Cognitive skills:The paper was not balanced in respect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels. Level 1 wasnot prescribed for this paper, Level 2 and 3 were too high, while Level 4 was too low.Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4Norm % 0 20 40 40Examiner % 8 32 50 13Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>C<strong>on</strong>tent coverageLO1 LO2 LO3 LO4Norm % 25 25 25 25Examiner % 26 26 23 25Cognitive skillsLevel 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4Norm % 0 20 40 40Examiner % 0 17 40 43Finding:The paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> and no resubmissi<strong>on</strong>was required. The internal moderator was required to ensure that c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised in <strong>the</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> were addressed.141. MATHEMATICAL LITERACY P2 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> instructi<strong>on</strong>s preceding <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s had to be rephrased to avoid c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>.Some diagrams and maps required attenti<strong>on</strong> as <strong>the</strong> print quality was poor. The firstquesti<strong>on</strong> should be shifted to <strong>the</strong> last questi<strong>on</strong> as it was time-c<strong>on</strong>suming and more difficult140
than <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r questi<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> paper (exchange Q1 and 5). The paper seemed l<strong>on</strong>g as<strong>the</strong>re was too much to read; c<strong>on</strong>sequently, suggesti<strong>on</strong>s regarding phrasing were made.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>: It was suggested that <strong>the</strong> internal moderator provide morequalitative feedback regarding certain shortcomings.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The paper adhered to <strong>the</strong> prescribed requirements.LO1 LO2 LO3 LO4Norm % 25 25 25 25Examiner % 25 22 26 27<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 25 22 26 27Cognitive skills:The questi<strong>on</strong>s fell within an acceptable range.Level 2 Level 3 Level 4Norm % 20 40 40Examiner % 16 44 41<strong>Umalusi</strong> % 20 41 39Marking memorandum:Fur<strong>the</strong>r alternative soluti<strong>on</strong>s were identified and recommended. The marking memoc<strong>on</strong>tained three errors and recommendati<strong>on</strong>s in this regard were accepted andimplemented.Language bias:Suggesti<strong>on</strong>s regarding dubious informati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> table in <strong>on</strong>e questi<strong>on</strong>, as well as <strong>the</strong>phrasing <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s, were made to ensure that <strong>the</strong>re was no c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong> and, at <strong>the</strong> sametime, unnecessary informati<strong>on</strong> was eliminated. C<strong>on</strong>tradictory and misleading informati<strong>on</strong>was identified and recommendati<strong>on</strong>s regarding adaptati<strong>on</strong>s were made to avoidc<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:There was limited compliance. Some c<strong>on</strong>texts did not reflect real-life situati<strong>on</strong>s accuratelyor realistically. Some maps and diagrams required attenti<strong>on</strong>. Some questi<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>tainedtoo much c<strong>on</strong>tradictory informati<strong>on</strong> and this might cause c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong> – recommendati<strong>on</strong>swere made in this regard. This paper was not fair as it was l<strong>on</strong>g and c<strong>on</strong>tained somequesti<strong>on</strong>s that could be misleading – recommendati<strong>on</strong>s for changes were made.141
Finding:At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was compliance in all respects. The Afrikaans versi<strong>on</strong> hadalso been submitted and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum were approved.142. MATHEMATICS P1 NOV ‘12First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Instructi<strong>on</strong>s to candidates were not clear. Candidates would not have been able tocomplete <strong>the</strong> paper in <strong>the</strong> allocated time and <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> illustrati<strong>on</strong>s, graphs andtables was inappropriate.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:Compliance was very close.TotalsAlgebraic manipulati<strong>on</strong>s 20 20Calculus 37 35Finance & annuities 15 15Functi<strong>on</strong>s & graphs 34 35Linear programming 15 15Patterns & sequences 30 30Totals 151 150RecommendedCognitive skills:Levels 1 and 2 toge<strong>the</strong>r were close to requirements, as were levels 3 and 4. There were,however, not enough complex procedures and too much problem solving.KnowledgeRoutineComplexprocedures proceduresProblem solvingRecommended 23 60 45 22Actual 27 54 32 38The external moderators recommended that more alternative soluti<strong>on</strong>s be included in <strong>the</strong>marking memorandum. Some beautifully innovative questi<strong>on</strong>s were included in this paper.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.142
143. MATHEMATICS P1 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Instructi<strong>on</strong>s to candidates were not clear; <strong>the</strong> paper could not be completed in <strong>the</strong>allocated time; and <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> illustrati<strong>on</strong>s, graphs etc. was not appropriate.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:Compliance was very close.ActualAlgebraic manipulati<strong>on</strong>s 21 20Calculus 36 35Finance & annuities 16 15Functi<strong>on</strong>s & graphs 34 35Linear programming 12 15Patterns & sequences 31 30Totals 150 150RecommendedCognitive skills:There were not enough problem-solving procedures and too many complex procedures.KnowledgeRoutineComplexprocedures proceduresProblem solvingRecommended 23 60 45 22Actual 21 64 47 18Marking memorandum:The external moderators recommended more alternative soluti<strong>on</strong>s.Language and bias:Subject terminology/data was not used correctly. The language register wasinappropriate for <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> candidates.Predictability:There were not enough innovative questi<strong>on</strong>s.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:There was limited compliance. The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was not fair, valid or reliable; and it wasnot <strong>of</strong> an appropriate standard.143
Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.144. MATHEMATICS P2 NOV ‘12First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Instructi<strong>on</strong>s to candidates were not clear. The paper would not have been beencompleted in <strong>the</strong> allocated time and <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> illustrati<strong>on</strong>s, graphs and tables was notappropriate.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:There was very close compliance with <strong>the</strong> requirements.TotalsData handling 27 25Coordinate geometry 36 40Transformati<strong>on</strong> geometry 24 25Trig<strong>on</strong>ometry 63 60Totals 150 150RecommendedCognitive skills:Levels 1 and 2 toge<strong>the</strong>r were close to requirements, but <strong>the</strong>re were not enough level 1problems.KnowledgeRoutineComplexprocedures proceduresProblem solvingRecommended 30 45 45 30Actual 39 60 42 9Marking memorandum:The external moderators provided fur<strong>the</strong>r alternative soluti<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> markingmemorandum.Language and bias:Subject terminology/data was not used correctly. The language register was notappropriate for <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> candidates.144
Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:There was limited compliance. The paper was not fair, valid or reliable, and was not <strong>of</strong> anappropriate standard.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.145. MATHEMATICS P2 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Instructi<strong>on</strong>s to candidates were not clear; <strong>the</strong> paper could not be completed within <strong>the</strong>allocated time; and <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> illustrati<strong>on</strong>s, graphs etc. was not appropriate.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:Compliance was very close.ActualData handling 25 25Coordinate geometry 38 40Transformati<strong>on</strong> geometry 28 25Trig<strong>on</strong>ometry 59 60Totals 150 150RecommendedCognitive skills:Levels 1 and 2 toge<strong>the</strong>r were close to requirements, but <strong>the</strong>re were not enough level-1problems.KnowledgeRoutineComplexprocedures proceduresProblem solvingRecommended 37.5 45 45 22.5Actual 37 43 46 24Marking memorandum:The external moderators provided fur<strong>the</strong>r alternative soluti<strong>on</strong>s.Language and bias:Subject terminology/data was not used correctly and <strong>the</strong> language register was notappropriate for <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> candidates.145
Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:Compliance was very close.ActualData handling 25 25Coordinate geometry 37 40Transformati<strong>on</strong> geometry 28 25Trig<strong>on</strong>ometry 60 60Totals 150 150RecommendedCognitive skillsKnowledgeRoutineComplexprocedures proceduresProblem solvingRecommended 37.5 45 45 22.5Actual 33 51 45 21Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.146. MATHEMATICS P3 NOV ‘12Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.147. MATHEMATICS P3 MAR ‘13Diagram and diagram sheets needed to be edited, o<strong>the</strong>rwise <strong>the</strong> paper complied with allpolicy requirements.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.146
148. MECHANICAL TECHNOLOGY NOV ‘12Cognitive skillsLow Medium HighNorm % 30 40 30Examiner % 33.5 40 26.5Finding:This paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.149. MECHANICAL TECHNOLOGY MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Mark allocati<strong>on</strong>s were not clearly indicated; mark allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper was not <strong>the</strong>same as <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> memo; and <strong>the</strong> illustrati<strong>on</strong>s, graphs, tables, etc. were not print-ready.Cognitive skills:Minor changes to <strong>the</strong> grid were required.Low Medium HighNorm % 30 40 30Examiner % 31 40.5 28.5Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.150. MUSIC P1 NOV ‘12<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Size and note spacing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> musical examples needed to be amended to helpcandidates to read and write <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:More rigorous and accurate moderati<strong>on</strong> was required to avoid errors in both <strong>the</strong> paperand <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum.147
Cognitive skills:The paper lacked vigorous assessment <strong>of</strong> higher cognitive level questi<strong>on</strong>s, such asanalytical or comparative descripti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> how musical elements were utilised in differentc<strong>on</strong>texts. The panel was advised to analyse each questi<strong>on</strong> more carefully in order toplace it correctly <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> grid. Some questi<strong>on</strong>s were too easy for Grade 12. Moreover, <strong>the</strong>level <strong>of</strong> difficulty <strong>of</strong> choice questi<strong>on</strong>s was unequal, for example Q4 and 5.The marking memorandum was inaccurate and <strong>the</strong>re was a bias in favour <strong>of</strong> jazzcandidates.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.151. MUSIC P1 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Size and note spacing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> musical examples needed to be amended so as to helpcandidates to read and write <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:More rigorous and accurate moderati<strong>on</strong> was required to avoid errors in both <strong>the</strong> paperand <strong>the</strong> memo.Cognitive skills:The paper lacked vigorous assessment <strong>of</strong> higher cognitive questi<strong>on</strong>s, such as analytical orcomparative descripti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> way musical elements were utilised in different c<strong>on</strong>texts.The panel needed to analyse each questi<strong>on</strong> more carefully in order to place it correctly<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> grid. Some questi<strong>on</strong>s were too easy for Grade 12 and <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> difficulty <strong>of</strong>choice questi<strong>on</strong>s should be <strong>the</strong> same, for example Q4 and 5.Marking memorandum:The memo was inaccurate.Language and bias:There was a bias in favour <strong>of</strong> jazz candidates.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong>.148
152. MUSIC P2 NOV ‘12<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Some instructi<strong>on</strong>s needed to be clearer. In additi<strong>on</strong>, some tracks <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> CD had to bereplaced.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:More rigorous and accurate moderati<strong>on</strong> was required to avoid errors in both <strong>the</strong> paperand <strong>the</strong> memo.Cognitive skills:The examples and illustrati<strong>on</strong>s used were not suitable. There was no appropriatedistributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels.Marking memorandum:The marking memorandum was inaccurate and it did not allow for alternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.153. MUSIC P2 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Some instructi<strong>on</strong>s needed to be clearer.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:More rigorous and accurate moderati<strong>on</strong> was required to avoid errors in both <strong>the</strong> paperand <strong>the</strong> memo.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The examples and illustrati<strong>on</strong>s were not suitable. Q5 needed to be amended – <strong>the</strong>knowledge required in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> was not required in <strong>the</strong> LPG.Cognitive skills:There was no appropriate distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels.149
Marking memorandum:This was inaccurate and did not allow for alternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:Q2, 3, 4 and 5 and <strong>the</strong> memo all needed to be amended.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.154. PHYSICAL SCIENCES P1 NOV ’12First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:A box c<strong>on</strong>taining all <strong>the</strong> previous questi<strong>on</strong> papers and internal moderators’ <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s wasmade available.Marking memorandum:At <strong>the</strong> third external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was compliance in most respects although <strong>the</strong>rewere still some errors that had to be removed from <strong>the</strong> memorandum.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:All LOs and ASs were addressed except for LO3 AS1 and LO1 AS3. The external moderatorshad empathy in respect <strong>of</strong> LO3 AS1, owing to <strong>the</strong> shortage <strong>of</strong> documented evidence <strong>on</strong>indigenous knowledge, but not in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> LO1 AS3.LO1LO2LO3ASAS1 4AS2 36AS3 13AS4 0AS1 18AS2 12AS3 63AS1 0AS2 4AS3 0Marks150
Exam GuidelinesExam PaperLO Weighting % LO Weighting %LO1 35–45 LO1 35.3LO2 45–55 LO2 62.0LO3 5–15 LO3 2.7The weighting was <strong>on</strong>ly appropriate for LO1; <strong>the</strong> paper did not <strong>the</strong>refore adequatelycover <strong>the</strong> LOs and ASs prescribed.Cognitive skills:There was full compliance.Exam Guidelines 2009Exam PaperCognitive level Weighting % LO Weighting %Level 1 15 Level 1 16Level 2 30 Level 2 29.3Level 3 45 Level 3 46.7Level 4 10 Level 4 8The memorandum was accurate except for Q3.3 and Q6.2.Language and bias:There were certain questi<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>taining language and questi<strong>on</strong> formulati<strong>on</strong> errors thatmade <strong>the</strong>m ei<strong>the</strong>r ambiguous or unclear and which could have created c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>. At <strong>the</strong>third external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re were still some errors to be corrected.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:At <strong>the</strong> third external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was compliance in most respects. Although <strong>the</strong>paper assessed knowledge and skills appropriately, it was still thin <strong>on</strong> values.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed. All <strong>the</strong> correcti<strong>on</strong>s wered<strong>on</strong>e <strong>on</strong> site and checked by <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> external moderators. The reas<strong>on</strong> given by <strong>the</strong>internal moderator for <strong>the</strong> low coverage <strong>of</strong> LO3, namely, that it led to inc<strong>on</strong>sistencies inmarking, was noted and would be <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed <strong>on</strong>.151
155. PHYSICAL SCIENCES P1 MAR ’13There was compliance in all respects. The analysis grid not <strong>on</strong>ly gave an indicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>cognitive level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s, but also an illustrati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> coverage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> curriculum.Innovative new questi<strong>on</strong>s were set.Findings:There was compliance in all respects, but a small number <strong>of</strong> correcti<strong>on</strong>s had to be madeand <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper had to be pro<strong>of</strong>read again. The paper was, <strong>the</strong>refore,c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved and had to be resubmitted for fur<strong>the</strong>r moderati<strong>on</strong>.At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re were still a few errors to be corrected and <strong>the</strong> paper was<strong>on</strong>ce again c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved, and had to be resubmitted for fur<strong>the</strong>r moderati<strong>on</strong>.At <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong> all changes had been addressed and both <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paperand memorandum were approved.156. PHYSICAL SCIENCES P2 NOV ‘12First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:A box c<strong>on</strong>taining all previous questi<strong>on</strong> papers and internal moderators’ <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s, that is, <strong>the</strong>history <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper, was made available.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverageLO AS MarksAS1 3LO1LO2LO3AS2 18AS3 25AS4 8AS1 15AS2 37AS3 37AS1 4AS2 3AS3 0152
All LOs and ASs were addressed except for LO3 AS3. The weighting for this LO was thin and<strong>the</strong> weighting <strong>of</strong> marks per LO was appropriate <strong>on</strong>ly for LO1 and LO2. The paper <strong>the</strong>reforedid not cover LO3 adequately.Exam GuidelinesExam PaperLO Weighting % LO Weighting %LO1 30–40 LO1 36LO2 50–60 LO2 59.3LO3 5–15 LO3 4.7Cognitive skills:The distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels was not appropriate.Exam Guidelines 2009Exam PaperCognitive level Weighting % LO Weighting %Level 1 15 Level 1 15.3Level 2 40 Level 2 41.3Level 3 35 Level 3 34.7Level 4 10 Level 4 8.7Language and bias:There were certain questi<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>taining language and questi<strong>on</strong> formulati<strong>on</strong> errors thatmade <strong>the</strong>m ei<strong>the</strong>r ambiguous or unclear, which could create c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>.Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>LO3 was still thin, that is, 4,7% against a norm <strong>of</strong> a 5–15% range.The distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels was not yet appropriate.Exam Guidelines 2009Exam PaperCognitive level Weighting % LO Weighting %Level 1 15 Level 1 15.3Level 2 40 Level 2 43.3Level 3 35 Level 3 33.7Level 4 10 Level 4 6.7Language and bias:There were still certain questi<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>taining language and questi<strong>on</strong> formulati<strong>on</strong> errors thatmade <strong>the</strong>m ei<strong>the</strong>r ambiguous or unclear, which could create c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>.153
Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum were approved at <strong>the</strong> third moderati<strong>on</strong>.157. PHYSICAL SCIENCES P2 MAR ‘13First moderati<strong>on</strong>Cognitive skills:All LOs and ASs were addressed, except for LO3 AS3 and LO1 AS3. The weighting for LO3was thin.LO AS MarksAS1 3LO1LO2LO3AS2 18AS3 25AS4 8AS1 15AS2 37AS3 37AS1 4AS2 3AS3 0C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The paper did not adequately cover LO3 as prescribed.Exam GuidelinesExam PaperLO Weighting % LO Weighting %LO1 30–40 LO1 36LO2 50–60 LO2 59.3LO3 5–15 LO3 4.7Exam GuidelinesExam PaperCognitive level Weighting % LO Weighting %Level 1 15 Level 1 15.3Level 2 40 Level 2 41.3Level 3 35 Level 3 34.7Level 4 10 Level 4 8.7Distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels was appropriate.154
Sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:LO3 was still thin, that is, 4.7% against <strong>the</strong> norm <strong>of</strong> a 5-15% range.Cognitive skills:Exam Guidelines 2009Exam PaperCognitive level Weighting % LO Weighting %Level 1 15 Level 1 15.3Level 2 40 Level 2 43.3Level 3 35 Level 3 33.3Level 4 10 Level 4 6.7Distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels was not yet appropriate.Marking memorandum:The memo was still not accurate with regard to certain questi<strong>on</strong>s.Language and bias:There were certain questi<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>taining language and questi<strong>on</strong> formulati<strong>on</strong> errors thatmade <strong>the</strong>m ei<strong>the</strong>r ambiguous or unclear and <strong>the</strong>y could create c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>.Third moderati<strong>on</strong>C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The coverage <strong>of</strong> LO3 was still thin.Cognitive skills:The distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels was not yet appropriate.Language and bias:There were a few language errors and some answers needed to be modified.155
Fourth moderati<strong>on</strong>Cognitive skillsExam Guidelines 2009Exam PaperCognitive level Weighting % LO Weighting %Level 1 15 Level 1 15.3Level 2 40 Level 2 43.3Level 3 35 Level 3 33.3Level 4 10 Level 4 6.7Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> fourth moderati<strong>on</strong>.158. RELIGION STUDIES P1 NOV ’12Marking memorandum:There was compliance in most respects and alternative answers were provided. Someadjustments to mark allocati<strong>on</strong> had to be d<strong>on</strong>e, and answers in <strong>the</strong> memorandum did notalways address <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> effectively.Language and bias:Suggesti<strong>on</strong>s regarding <strong>the</strong> rewording <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s were made. It was also recommendedthat language in <strong>the</strong> memorandum be simplified.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum were c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved but had to besubmitted for fur<strong>the</strong>r moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> recommended adjustments had been made.The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.159. RELIGION STUDIES P1 MAR ’13Cognitive skills:It was recommended that some instructi<strong>on</strong>s be changed – ‘explain’ ra<strong>the</strong>r than ‘discuss’should be used, for example. At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was compliance inall respects.156
Marking memorandum:Some correcti<strong>on</strong>s to <strong>the</strong> memorandum were required. At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong><strong>the</strong>re was compliance in all respects.Language and bias:There were some minor errors to be corrected. At sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re wascompliance in all respects, but <strong>the</strong>re were still some minor errors to be corrected.Adherence to policies/guidelines:There were a few correcti<strong>on</strong>s to be attended to; however, at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d externalmoderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was compliance in all respects.Finding:At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum were bothapproved.160. RELIGION STUDIES P2 NOV ’12Language and bias:The wording in Q3.2 could be c<strong>on</strong>fusing.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum were c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved and had to besubmitted for fur<strong>the</strong>r moderati<strong>on</strong>, pending a list <strong>of</strong> errors that had to be attended to.At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> all errors had been corrected and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper andmemorandum were approved.161. RELIGION STUDIES P2 MAR ’13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:There were some minor technical errors to be corrected.Marking memorandum:Answers provided in <strong>the</strong> memorandum did not always address <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s effectively.Language and bias:There was <strong>on</strong>e recommendati<strong>on</strong> to be complied with.157
Finding:At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong> all correcti<strong>on</strong>s had been effected and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>paper and memorandum were approved.162. SEPEDI FAL P1 NOV ‘12<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:A request was made to include copies <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers from <strong>the</strong> past three years inorder to detect predictability. In additi<strong>on</strong>, certain adjustments to <strong>the</strong> paper andmemorandum had to be made which had not been picked up by <strong>the</strong> internal moderator.In additi<strong>on</strong>, it was found that cognitive skills were not appropriately distributed and <strong>the</strong>memorandum was not accurate. There was some evidence <strong>of</strong> bias – text should revealboth sides <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> coin, <strong>the</strong> good and <strong>the</strong> bad. It was not easy to determine whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>rewas repetiti<strong>on</strong> because papers from <strong>the</strong> past three years were not made available.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>: There were some changes and correcti<strong>on</strong>s to be made.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The analysis grid had to updated to accommodate <strong>the</strong> changes.Cognitive skills:The analysis grid had to be balanced.Language and bias:The text for <strong>the</strong> comprehensi<strong>on</strong> test was inappropriate.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.163. SEPEDI FAL P1 MAR ’13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Copies <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> past three years must be attached to enable <strong>the</strong> panel toensure that questi<strong>on</strong>s are not repeated. The analysis grid had to be reworked for minoradjustments.158
Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:There were some changes and correcti<strong>on</strong>s to be made that were not picked up by <strong>the</strong>internal moderator.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The analysis grid had to be reworked to accommodate <strong>the</strong> required changes.Cognitive skills:The analysis grid had to be balanced. Moreover, it was found that <strong>the</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong> wasinappropriate.Marking memorandum:The memorandum was inaccurate.Language and bias:There was some evidence <strong>of</strong> bias – <strong>the</strong> text did not provide a balanced view.Predictability:Without <strong>the</strong> previous three years’ questi<strong>on</strong> papers it was not possible to judge whe<strong>the</strong>r<strong>the</strong>re was repetiti<strong>on</strong>.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum were c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved and had to besubmitted for fur<strong>the</strong>r moderati<strong>on</strong>. The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>dmoderati<strong>on</strong>.164. SEPEDI FAL P2 NOV ‘12Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:Several adjustments to <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper still needed to be effected. Rigorousmoderati<strong>on</strong> had to be d<strong>on</strong>e and <strong>the</strong> changes had to be effected as required.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The analysis grid had to be reworked to accommodate <strong>the</strong> required changes.Marking memorandum:The marking memo should always make provisi<strong>on</strong> for alternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses. Accordingly,several adjustments were required.159
Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.165. SEPEDI FAL P2 MAR ’13Marking memorandum:The marking memo should always make provisi<strong>on</strong> for alternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses. In additi<strong>on</strong>,<strong>the</strong>re were several adjustments to be made.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum were c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved and had to besubmitted for fur<strong>the</strong>r moderati<strong>on</strong>. Rigorous moderati<strong>on</strong> had to be d<strong>on</strong>e and <strong>the</strong> changeshad to be effected as required. The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d externalmoderati<strong>on</strong>.166. SEPEDI FAL P3 NOV ‘12A file with a full history should be submitted. Although evidence <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> wasavailable, <strong>the</strong> wording <strong>of</strong> Q1.6–1.8 was a c<strong>on</strong>cern. The DBE was requested to submit a fullhistory in order to verify Q8.2 and 8.3.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.167. SEPEDI FAL P3 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The memo for Secti<strong>on</strong> B and C had to be included to guide markers <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> topics set.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>: Although <strong>the</strong>re was evidence <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>, <strong>the</strong> wording <strong>of</strong> Q1.6–1.8 was a c<strong>on</strong>cern.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:Challenges were identified c<strong>on</strong>cerning <strong>the</strong> phrasing <strong>of</strong> pictorial questi<strong>on</strong>s (Q1.6–1.8).160
Marking memorandum:Limited compliance – <strong>the</strong> memo was inaccurate; it was found that it would not facilitatemarking and <strong>the</strong> mark allocati<strong>on</strong> and mark distributi<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s was incomplete.Language and bias:Q 1.3 needed to be rephrased.Predictability:The DBE was advised to submit a file with a full history in order to verify minimum standards8.2 and 8.3.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.168. SEPEDI HL P1 NOV ‘12The grid needed to be reworked as it required minor adjustments here and <strong>the</strong>re. Theexternal moderators requested <strong>the</strong> DBE to include copies <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers from <strong>the</strong> pastthree years in order to detect predictability.There was no evidence that <strong>the</strong> paper had been internally moderated. Moreover, <strong>the</strong>rewas an inappropriate distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels.There was some evidence <strong>of</strong> bias – in future such texts should be avoided. Bothcomprehensi<strong>on</strong> and visual texts emphasised <strong>the</strong> bad side <strong>of</strong> government employees,implying that <strong>the</strong>y are all bad people.Judgement <strong>on</strong> predictability was precluded by <strong>the</strong> n<strong>on</strong>-submissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> past three years’questi<strong>on</strong> papers.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.161
169. SEPEDI HL P1 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The grid needed to be reworked as it required minor adjustments. There was a request toinclude copies <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers from <strong>the</strong> past three years in order to detectpredictability.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:There was no evidence that <strong>the</strong> paper had been internally moderated.Cognitive skills:The distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels was inappropriate.Marking memorandum:The memo was inaccurate.Language and bias:There was some evidence <strong>of</strong> bias – in future such texts should be avoided. Bothcomprehensi<strong>on</strong> and visual texts emphasised <strong>the</strong> bad aspects <strong>of</strong> government employees,implying that <strong>the</strong>y are all bad people.Predictability:Judgement <strong>on</strong> this was precluded by <strong>the</strong> n<strong>on</strong>-inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> past three years’ questi<strong>on</strong>papers.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong>.170. SEPEDI HL P2 NOV ’12<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The analysis grid needed to be reworked because <strong>of</strong> some minor adjustments. Copies <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> past three years’ questi<strong>on</strong> papers should be provided at <strong>the</strong> next moderati<strong>on</strong>.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>: Some questi<strong>on</strong>s needed to be adjusted or corrected.Cognitive skills:The cognitive levels had to be balanced.162
Marking memorandum:Several adjustments had to be d<strong>on</strong>e.Findings:At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum wereapproved as all recommendati<strong>on</strong>s had been complied with.171. SEPEDI HL P2 MAR ‘13172. SEPEDI HL P3 NOV ‘12A request was made to include copies <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers from <strong>the</strong> past three years inorder to detect predictability. Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was not rigorous.There was limited compliance in respect <strong>of</strong> predictability. The DBE was requested tosubmit a full history <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper in order to verify Q8.2 and 8.3.The paper was not fair, valid or reliable, did not compare favourably with previous years’questi<strong>on</strong> papers and was not <strong>of</strong> an appropriate standard.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.173. SEPEDI HL P3 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The memo for Secti<strong>on</strong>s B and C should be included to guide markers <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> set topics.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:There was no thorough moderati<strong>on</strong> – <strong>the</strong>re were clear grammatical and typographicalerrors.Marking memorandum:Limited compliance – <strong>the</strong> memo was inaccurate; would not have facilitated marking; and<strong>the</strong> mark allocati<strong>on</strong> and mark distributi<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s was incomplete.163
Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong>.174. SEPEDI SAL P1 NOV ‘12C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:There were several questi<strong>on</strong>s that needed to be adjusted or rephrased, and <strong>the</strong> analysis tobe adjusted accordingly.Marking memorandum:Several adjustments had to be made to <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum.Finding:At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong> all adjustments and correcti<strong>on</strong>s had been effectedand <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum were approved.175. SEPEDI SAL P1 MAR ‘13Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:Several adjustments had to be made to both <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum.Marking memorandum:Several correcti<strong>on</strong>s had to be made.Finding:At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong> all adjustments and correcti<strong>on</strong>s had been effectedand <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum were approved.176. SEPEDI SAL P2 NOV ‘12<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The analysis grid needed some minor adjustments.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:Some correcti<strong>on</strong>s had to be made, and an instructi<strong>on</strong> had to be adjusted.164
Marking memorandum:There are some items to be corrected in <strong>the</strong> memorandum.Finding:At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong> all correcti<strong>on</strong>s had been d<strong>on</strong>e and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>paper and memorandum were approved.177. SEPEDI SAL P2 MAR ’13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The analysis grid needed some minor adjustments.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:Some minor adjustments had to be attended to in both <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper andmemorandum.Finding:At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper and memorandum were approved.178. SESOTHO FAL P1 NOV ‘12Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.179. SESOTHO FAL P1 MAR ‘13180. SESOTHO FAL P2 NOV ‘12Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.165
181. SESOTHO FAL P2 MAR ‘13182. SESOTHO FAL P3 NOV ‘12There was no internal moderator’s <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>. The memorandum was inaccurate and wouldnot facilitate marking. Descriptors in <strong>the</strong> rubric for Secti<strong>on</strong> A needed to be corrected and<strong>the</strong> descriptors for Secti<strong>on</strong>s B and C, levels 7, 6 and 5 needed to be reorganised properlyto make <strong>the</strong> memorandum user-friendly and accurate.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.183. SESOTHO FAL P3 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Instructi<strong>on</strong>s 1 and 2 had to be merged to make <strong>the</strong>m <strong>on</strong>e instructi<strong>on</strong>.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:There was no internal moderator’s <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The c<strong>on</strong>tent was adequately coveredMarking memorandum:The memo was inaccurate and would not have facilitated marking. Descriptors in <strong>the</strong>rubric for Secti<strong>on</strong> A needed to be corrected and <strong>the</strong> descriptors for Secti<strong>on</strong>s B and C,levels 7, 6 and 5 needed to be reorganised properly to make <strong>the</strong> memo user-friendly andaccurate.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.184. SESOTHO HL P1 NOV ‘12Approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.166
185. SESOTHO HL P1 MAR ‘13Approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.186. SESOTHO HL P2 NOV ‘12Approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.187. SESOTHO HL P2 MAR ‘13Approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.188. SESOTHO HL P3 NOV ‘12Certain instructi<strong>on</strong>s needed to be modified and edited. Although <strong>the</strong> paper had beenintensely moderated, certain n<strong>on</strong>-compliances were picked up by <strong>the</strong> externalmoderators in respect <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent coverage. Too many words were used in structuringlengthy c<strong>on</strong>texts which detracted from <strong>the</strong> real focus <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> topic. The c<strong>on</strong>text for essay1.1 was inappropriate for a narrative essay and <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>text <strong>of</strong> essay 1.3 was inappropriatefor an argumentative essay. Marking grids and rubrics were well laid out, but, in light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>changes, <strong>the</strong>se needed to be rec<strong>on</strong>sidered as well.Finding:The paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> and no resubmissi<strong>on</strong>was required. The internal moderator was, however, required to ensure that <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cernsraised in <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> were addressed.189. SESOTHO HL P3 MAR ‘13Approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.190. SESOTHO SAL P1 NOV ‘12Approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.167
191. SESOTHO SAL P1 MAR ‘13192. SESOTHO SAL P2 NOV ‘12Approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.193. SESOTHO SAL P2 MAR ‘13194. SETSWANA FAL P1 NOV ‘12Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.195. SETSWANA FAL P1 MAR ‘13Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.196. SETSWANA FAL P2 NOV ‘12<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria/internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:The quality <strong>of</strong> illustrati<strong>on</strong>s was not appropriate and not print-ready; <strong>the</strong>re was limitedcompliance in respect <strong>of</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong>; <strong>the</strong> quality, standard and relevance <strong>of</strong>input from <strong>the</strong> internal moderator were inappropriate; and <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence that<strong>the</strong> internal moderator’s recommendati<strong>on</strong>s had been effected. The DBE panel wasadvised to revisit <strong>the</strong> Examinati<strong>on</strong> Guidelines for Languages (15–16 April 2010).C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:There was limited compliance. All questi<strong>on</strong>s needed to be revised to suit <strong>the</strong> ASs and <strong>the</strong>guidelines for literature. Questi<strong>on</strong>s were not found to be within <strong>the</strong> broad scope <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> AS.Moreover, <strong>the</strong> weighting and spread <strong>of</strong> LOs and ASs were inappropriateCognitive skills:There was limited compliance. The distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels wasinappropriate and choice questi<strong>on</strong>s were not <strong>of</strong> an equal level <strong>of</strong> difficulty.168
Marking memorandum:The memorandum was inaccurate, did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d with questi<strong>on</strong> paper, did not makeallowance for alternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses and would not have facilitated marking.Predictability:The paper did not c<strong>on</strong>tain an appropriate degree <strong>of</strong> innovati<strong>on</strong>.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.197. SETSWANA FAL P2 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The quality <strong>of</strong> illustrati<strong>on</strong>s was nei<strong>the</strong>r appropriate nor print-ready.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:There was limited compliance – <strong>the</strong> quality, standard and relevance <strong>of</strong> input from <strong>the</strong>internal moderator were inappropriate; and <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence that <strong>the</strong> internalmoderator’s recommendati<strong>on</strong>s had been implemented. The DBE panel was advised torevisit <strong>the</strong> Subject Assessment Guidelines for Languages (15–16 April 2010).C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:There was limited compliance – all questi<strong>on</strong>s needed to be revised to suit <strong>the</strong> ASs and <strong>the</strong>guidelines for literature; <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s were not within <strong>the</strong> broad scope <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Statementand <strong>the</strong> weighting and spread <strong>of</strong> LOs and ASs were not appropriate.Cognitive skills:Limited compliance – <strong>the</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> cognitive levels was inappropriate; andchoice questi<strong>on</strong>s were not <strong>of</strong> an equal level <strong>of</strong> difficulty.Marking memorandum:The memo was not accurate; did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d with <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper; did not makeallowance for alternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses and would not have facilitated marking.Adherence to policies/guidelines:Limited compliance – <strong>the</strong> paper was not in line with current guideline documents; and <strong>the</strong>weighting and spread <strong>of</strong> LOs and ASs were inappropriate.169
Predictability:The paper did not c<strong>on</strong>tain an appropriate degree <strong>of</strong> innovati<strong>on</strong>.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.198. SETSWANA FAL P3 NOV ‘12Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.199. SETSWANA FAL P3 MAR ‘13Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong>.200. SETSWANA HL P1 NOV ‘12External moderators identified mistakes in respect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> visual texts, phrasing <strong>of</strong>questi<strong>on</strong>s, spelling and punctuati<strong>on</strong>, c<strong>on</strong>tradictory statements, inc<strong>on</strong>sistencies,inadequate resp<strong>on</strong>ses and code-mixing.There was full compliance, that is, 40: 40: 20, in respect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> cognitive skills.However, <strong>the</strong>re were subtleties in language and grammar that twisted <strong>the</strong> intendedmeaning.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.201. SETSWANA HL P1 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Incorrect phrasing <strong>of</strong> Q1.2.6, 1.2.7 and 1.2.8.170
Language and bias:The carto<strong>on</strong> in Q4 was biased towards o<strong>the</strong>r religi<strong>on</strong>s.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.202. SETSWANA HL P2 NOV ‘12203. SETSWANA HL P2 MAR ‘13204. SETSWANA HL P3 NOV ’12The pictures used in Q1.6 and 1.8 were inappropriate and would not trigger learners’creativity and imaginati<strong>on</strong>.Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.205. SETSWANA HL P3 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:The picture in Q2.2 did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d closely to <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> asked.Language and bias:There were subtleties in language and grammar in Qs 1.6, 1.7 and 1.8.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong>.206. SETSWANA SAL P1 NOV ‘12Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.171
207. SETSWANA SAL P1 MAR ‘13Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong>.208. SETSWANA SAL P2 NOV ‘12Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.209. SETSWANA SAL P2 MAR ‘13Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.210. SISWATI FAL P1 NOV ‘12First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:There were a few editorial errors and changes to be attended to.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:There were still some challenges to be attended to.Marking memorandum:There were many mistakes to be attended to.Finding:At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper was found to be fully compliant and wasapproved.172
211. SISWATI FAL P1 MAR ‘13212. SISWATI FAL P2 NOV ‘12Finding:At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper was found to be fully compliant and wasapproved.213. SISWATI FAL P2 MAR ‘13214. SISWATI FAL P3 NOV ‘12<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:There were some minor errors to be attended to.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:Only two fur<strong>the</strong>r errors were identified.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved, but did not have to be returned forfur<strong>the</strong>r moderati<strong>on</strong>, as <strong>the</strong> internal moderator had to implement <strong>the</strong> suggesti<strong>on</strong>s forcorrecti<strong>on</strong>. The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was, never<strong>the</strong>less, submitted for sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> andapproved.215. SISWATI FAL P3 MAR ‘13First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:There were some editorial correcti<strong>on</strong>s that had to be made before <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papercould be signed <strong>of</strong>f. In additi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>the</strong> correct sources <strong>of</strong> pictures and carto<strong>on</strong>s had to beprovided.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:Only two errors were identified and had to be corrected.173
Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved and had to be resubmitted for fur<strong>the</strong>rmoderati<strong>on</strong>. At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> all requirements had been met and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>paper was approved.216. SISWATI HL P1 NOV ‘12Finding:At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong> all comments had been addressed satisfactorily and<strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved.217. SISWATI HL P1 MAR ‘13Finding:At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper was found to be fully compliantand was approved.218. SISWATI HL P2 NOV ‘12Finding:At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper was found to be fully compliant and wasapproved.219. SISWATI HL P2 MAR ‘13Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong>.220. SISWATI HL P3 NOV ‘12First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:There were some minor editorial errors to be corrected in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paperInternal moderati<strong>on</strong>:The few errors could be corrected by <strong>the</strong> internal moderator.174
Finding:At <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved, and did not haveto be resubmitted for fur<strong>the</strong>r moderati<strong>on</strong>.221. SISWATI HL P3 MAR ‘13<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:There were some editorial correcti<strong>on</strong>s to be made.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:A few errors were identified that could be handled by <strong>the</strong> internal moderator.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> and did not haveto be returned for fur<strong>the</strong>r external moderati<strong>on</strong>.222. SISWATI SAL P1 NOV ‘12<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:There were some editorial errors and changes to be attended to.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:There were still some challenges to be addressed.Marking memorandum:There were many mistakes to be attended to.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved and had to be returned for fur<strong>the</strong>rmoderati<strong>on</strong>. At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was compliance in all respects and <strong>the</strong>questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved.175
223. SISWATI SAL P1 MAR ‘13First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:There were some editorial correcti<strong>on</strong>s to be made to both <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper and <strong>the</strong>memorandum.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:There were several errors to be corrected.Marking memorandum:There were many mistakes to be attended to.Finding:At first moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved but had to besubmitted for a sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong>. At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d external moderati<strong>on</strong> alleditorial comments had been attended to satisfactorily and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper wasapproved.224. SISWATI SAL P2 NOV ‘12<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Q1.1 had to be reviewed, and <strong>the</strong>re were correcti<strong>on</strong>s to be made.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved and had to be returned for fur<strong>the</strong>rmoderati<strong>on</strong>. At <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved.225. SISWATI SAL P2 MAR ‘13First moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Some questi<strong>on</strong>s needed review and correcti<strong>on</strong>.176
Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:The internal moderator’s recommendati<strong>on</strong>s had been implemented, but <strong>the</strong>re were twoquesti<strong>on</strong>s that needed review.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong>:Learners would find this paper challenging and demanding. Two questi<strong>on</strong>s had to bereviewed, and some errors had to be corrected.Finding:The paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved and had to be returned for fur<strong>the</strong>r moderati<strong>on</strong>. At<strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s had been reviewed and <strong>the</strong> editorial commentsattended to in a satisfactory manner, and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper was approved.226. TOURISM NOV ‘12<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteria:Instructi<strong>on</strong>s to candidates were not clearly specified. The quality <strong>of</strong> graphs requiredimprovement.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>:The quality and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> internal moderator’s input was inappropriate.C<strong>on</strong>tent coverage:The weighting and spread <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent was inappropriate. The examples and illustrati<strong>on</strong>sused were not suitable, appropriate or relevant.Marking memorandum:The memorandum was inaccurate and did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d with <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper insome respects: Q4.1.1 – some inclusi<strong>on</strong>s needed to be made Q6.2.2 – calculati<strong>on</strong>s were not correct Q7.3.1 and 7.3.2 – answer was wr<strong>on</strong>g.Language and bias:Terminology was not used correctly and subtleties were found in <strong>the</strong> grammar that mightcreate c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>. There was some evidence <strong>of</strong> bias and <strong>the</strong> passages used were not <strong>of</strong>appropriate length or vocabulary.177
Finding:The paper was approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong> when all <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns raised by <strong>the</strong>external moderators in <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong> had been addressed.227. TOURISM ‘MAR 13Minor changes were needed.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.228 – 243. TSHIVENDA HL, FAL AND SAL NOV ’12 &MAR ‘13First moderati<strong>on</strong>:The following obtained in Paper 1 during <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>: The comprehensi<strong>on</strong> test for<strong>the</strong> November 2012 lacked coherence and logic, <strong>the</strong> message did not flow coherentlyfrom <strong>on</strong>e paragraph to ano<strong>the</strong>r, and this might cause c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>. It was recommendedthat <strong>the</strong> comprehensi<strong>on</strong> be replaced, as well as <strong>the</strong> visual text. There was no innovati<strong>on</strong> in<strong>the</strong> text; it was found to be uninteresting and would not motivate <strong>the</strong> learners.The Analysis Grid for <strong>the</strong> March 2013 paper indicated fur<strong>the</strong>r changes to be effected by<strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> panel, but it was never<strong>the</strong>less submitted to <strong>the</strong> external moderators.Cognitive levels <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> grid needed to be changed and addressed as requested by <strong>the</strong>external moderators.Marks were incorrectly calculated <strong>on</strong> Text 2 in <strong>the</strong> March paper – 9 marks were giveninstead <strong>of</strong> 10. The summary text in <strong>the</strong> March 2013 paper needed to be replaced as it wasa repetiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> that in <strong>the</strong> November 2011 paper.Finding:With <strong>the</strong> excepti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> HL Paper 1, which was approved in <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>, <strong>the</strong> rest<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> papers were approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.244 & 245. VISUAL ARTS P1 AND P2 NOV ‘12178
Both papers were approved at <strong>the</strong> first moderati<strong>on</strong>.246. VISUAL ARTS P1 MAR ‘13Minor editorial errors were found.Finding:The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally approved.247-254. XITSONGA HL, FAL AND SAL NOV ‘12Finding:All <strong>the</strong> Xits<strong>on</strong>ga papers were approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.255-262. XITSONGA HL, FAL AND SAL MAR ‘13Finding:All <strong>the</strong> Xits<strong>on</strong>ga papers were approved at <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d moderati<strong>on</strong>.179
ADDENDUM 2 AMODERATION AND VERIFICATION OF GRADE 12SCHOOL-BASED ASSESSMENT(To be read in c<strong>on</strong>juncti<strong>on</strong> with chapter 2 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> main <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>)PHASE 1: VERIFICATION OF TEACHERS’ FILESEASTERN CAPEENGLISH FIRST ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> assessed tasksThe c<strong>on</strong>tent coverage and relevance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> set tasks were generally acceptable. Therewas, however, c<strong>on</strong>stant reuse <strong>of</strong> old material, which resulted in problems <strong>on</strong> both <strong>the</strong>technical and <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels.In Libode District work <strong>of</strong> an acceptable standard was being produced, and teacherswere standardising tests and tasks, although some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasks were not <strong>of</strong> an appropriatestandard. Moreover, <strong>on</strong>e topic <strong>on</strong>ly for a writing task would not <strong>of</strong>fer enough practise for<strong>the</strong> final examinati<strong>on</strong>s.On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, <strong>the</strong> Fort Beaufort schools were each doing <strong>the</strong>ir own tasks and <strong>the</strong>standards varied between schools and within <strong>the</strong> tasks <strong>the</strong>mselves. Many were belowstandard as far as c<strong>on</strong>tent, technical criteria, and memoranda and/or rubrics werec<strong>on</strong>cerned, with many memos and rubrics being incorrect and outdated. Internalmoderati<strong>on</strong> was inadequate.Most schools were setting tasks at a low level. In most cases levels 1 and 2 <strong>of</strong> Barrett’stax<strong>on</strong>omy were used. This was evident in <strong>the</strong> schools from Fort Beaufort District.In many cases, <strong>the</strong> rubrics or tools being used were not in line with <strong>the</strong> Subject AssessmentGuidelines (SAG). Where <strong>the</strong> marking tools had been adopted from pre-existing papers,<strong>the</strong>y were not properly aligned or renumbered.180
At some schools no marks were reflected for <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d term. Marks in memos <strong>of</strong>ten didnot correlate with <strong>the</strong> test marks. In additi<strong>on</strong>, mark distributi<strong>on</strong> was seldom indicated in <strong>the</strong>memoranda.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> across different levelsA serious lack <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> and feedback was noted. The moderati<strong>on</strong> was not rigorous,as in <strong>on</strong>e case missing questi<strong>on</strong>s had not been picked up, although <strong>the</strong> test was signed.Feedback and supportVery little actual written feedback was in evidence.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practiceSchools in <strong>the</strong> Libode District had used comm<strong>on</strong> tasks, which meant that <strong>the</strong>ir work couldbe assessed accurately and <strong>the</strong> schools in <strong>the</strong> area were likely to benefit.Areas for improvement Rubrics were not used correctly, resulting in generalised marking; rubrics wereinappropriate and outdated. In some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> teacher-developed tasks <strong>the</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks in questi<strong>on</strong>s wasinaccurate. The standard <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>ing was pitched at <strong>the</strong> lower cognitive levels. There was a lack <strong>of</strong> rigorous internal moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> teachers’ files. No c<strong>on</strong>structive feedback was given by <strong>the</strong> moderator to <strong>the</strong> educator. Substandard tasks were developed by some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> selected schools, and <strong>the</strong>re wascareless use <strong>of</strong> previous examinati<strong>on</strong> material. Instructi<strong>on</strong>s were <strong>of</strong>ten not clear orwere not given at all. Choices were not given when setting creative writing tasks. Marking memoranda did not always correlate with questi<strong>on</strong> papers.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s District <strong>of</strong>ficials (subject advisors) should moderate <strong>the</strong>ir educators’ files thoroughlyand <strong>of</strong>fer c<strong>on</strong>structive comments. Standardising <strong>of</strong> tasks is recommended. Educators should align <strong>the</strong>ir assessment tasks with those that are used in <strong>the</strong> final NSCexaminati<strong>on</strong>. Educators should pay more attenti<strong>on</strong> to <strong>the</strong> structure and level <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>ing in <strong>the</strong>NSC questi<strong>on</strong> papers, and not restrict <strong>the</strong>mselves to level 1 and 2 questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong>ly. Moderati<strong>on</strong> at all levels is essential, but not merely by signing. Feedback is crucial.181
PHYSICAL SCIENCES<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> assessed tasks LO2 was over-assessed to <strong>the</strong> neglect <strong>of</strong> LO1 (science investigati<strong>on</strong>) and LO3(science, envir<strong>on</strong>ment and human development). Most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examined c<strong>on</strong>tent across <strong>the</strong> selected schools was within <strong>the</strong> policy andguidelines. At <strong>on</strong>e school, however, disc<strong>on</strong>tinued c<strong>on</strong>tent was assessed. In both districts it was observed that although <strong>the</strong> practical investigati<strong>on</strong>s dealt withwere within <strong>the</strong> policy and guidelines, <strong>the</strong> topics chosen were inappropriatebecause <strong>the</strong>y were available in full in <strong>the</strong> textbooks. This inflated learners’ marks,causing bunching and, <strong>the</strong>refore, a poor spread <strong>of</strong> marks. The comm<strong>on</strong> tests and June exams were <strong>of</strong> an appropriate level <strong>of</strong> difficulty, but <strong>the</strong>practical investigati<strong>on</strong>s were too easy. The marking tools were appropriate. The mark allocati<strong>on</strong>s in some instances were not aligned with <strong>the</strong> difficulty <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>tasks.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> across different levelsThere was evidence to suggest that moderati<strong>on</strong> was indeed taking place at schools. Thiswas suggested by <strong>the</strong> colours used in <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files to indicate different levels <strong>of</strong>moderati<strong>on</strong>.Feedback and supportEvidence <strong>of</strong> feedback was found. The feedback from subject head to teacher wasappropriate as far as m<strong>on</strong>itoring was c<strong>on</strong>cerned. However, feedback <strong>on</strong> subject c<strong>on</strong>tent,science c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>s and language errors was, n<strong>on</strong>-existent.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice There was evidence <strong>of</strong> re-marking and m<strong>on</strong>itoring. There were pockets <strong>of</strong> good comm<strong>on</strong> tests and June examinati<strong>on</strong>s that were set atschool level.Areas for improvement Averages should be shown <strong>on</strong> mark sheets. Practical investigati<strong>on</strong>s (PIs) that can achieve an appropriate spread <strong>of</strong> marks shouldbe selected for school-based assessment (SBA) and rubrics should be used to assess<strong>the</strong>m. The coverage <strong>of</strong> LO1 and LO3 in tasks needs to be improved.182
Recommendati<strong>on</strong>sModerati<strong>on</strong> should be viewed as a process to enable each learner to obtain <strong>the</strong> markthat he/she deserves in each assessment task. Any issues that prevent this from beingachieved should be addressed urgently.LIFE ORIENTATION<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> assessed tasksTask 1 did not address <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent as outlined in <strong>the</strong> guideline, and <strong>the</strong> technical qualitywas poor. Task 2 included inappropriate c<strong>on</strong>tent, as <strong>the</strong> CV and letter <strong>of</strong> applicati<strong>on</strong> wereGrade 11 tasks, and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r topics did not form part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> core c<strong>on</strong>tent to be assessed.Most questi<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> task were lower order questi<strong>on</strong>s, which compromised<strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> task. The structure for Secti<strong>on</strong> B was incorrect.In most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasks <strong>the</strong> rubric was appropriate, although in some instances model answerswere not provided. Mark allocati<strong>on</strong> was not indicated, and in Secti<strong>on</strong> B <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>paper questi<strong>on</strong> 5 was not clearly formulated.The marks from Gobinamba were inaccurate, indicating that <strong>the</strong> marking tool was notapplied c<strong>on</strong>sistently. In Term 1, all learners had earned an A symbol as a term mark.The physical educati<strong>on</strong> tasks (PETs) generally reflected 100% attendance for all learners,implying that n<strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> learners had ever been absent.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> across different levelsIn some schools <strong>the</strong>re was evidence that files were checked for compliance, but <strong>the</strong>y hadnot been moderated.Feedback and supportWhere <strong>the</strong> standard was found to be inappropriate, <strong>the</strong>re was no detailed input orinformative notes <strong>on</strong> how to improve it.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practiceThe use <strong>of</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> tasks was noted, although <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasks needed to bestreng<strong>the</strong>ned.183
Areas for improvement The first two tasks covered <strong>the</strong> same aspect, even though <strong>the</strong>re was a wide varietyto choose from. The tasks were pitched at a low cognitive level. Substandard tasks were developedto assess PET with <strong>the</strong> result that all learners earned high marks for PET.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s The assessment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> various LOs and ASs must be carefully balanced in order toensure that <strong>the</strong> relevant c<strong>on</strong>tent is examined. Tasks emanating from a province should set <strong>the</strong> standard for <strong>the</strong> schools in thatprovince to follow, and should be <strong>of</strong> a standard equal to nati<strong>on</strong>al questi<strong>on</strong> papers inall respects. Such papers need to reflect an appropriate spread across <strong>the</strong> cognitivelevels. Workshops must be held to bring PET up to standard. In additi<strong>on</strong>, educators needguidance <strong>on</strong> how to assess PET. Questi<strong>on</strong> papers must include higher-order questi<strong>on</strong>s. The province/districts should devise interventi<strong>on</strong> strategies to address <strong>the</strong>development <strong>of</strong> tasks.KWAZULU-NATALACCOUNTING<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> assessed tasks The c<strong>on</strong>tent coverage for c<strong>on</strong>trolled tests, comm<strong>on</strong> assessment tasks and <strong>the</strong> Juneexaminati<strong>on</strong> was appropriate. However c<strong>on</strong>tent coverage in written <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s andprojects was a challenge. Many assessment tasks addressed <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong>e assessmentstandard. Moreover, questi<strong>on</strong>s were <strong>of</strong>ten <strong>the</strong>oretical and irrelevant to <strong>the</strong> subject. Most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> assessment tasks were a combinati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> very low and medium-orderquesti<strong>on</strong>s with no balance <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s within a specific task. Also <strong>the</strong> subjectcognitive norms were not adhered to. The marking <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s and project rubrics were vague in most cases with subjectivecriteria. Marks allocated <strong>on</strong> rubrics were high and not c<strong>on</strong>sistent with <strong>the</strong> difficulty <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>, for example 5 marks awarded for giving <strong>the</strong> name <strong>of</strong> a company.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> across different levelsThere was no evidence <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> at any level in any <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files that weresubmitted.184
Feedback and supportThere was limited evidence at a few schools that educators were supported at schooland district levels.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice A comm<strong>on</strong> provincial paper was administered and written by schools, including <strong>the</strong>under-performing schools. Diagnostic analysis provided after each assessment task allowed educators toidentify problem areas.Areas for improvement Administered and planned assessment tasks lacked evidence <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> acrossdifferent levels. Some assessment tasks were technically inadequate. In cases where moderati<strong>on</strong> had been d<strong>on</strong>e, it was limited and did not providedetailed input which would improve <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns. Vague and subjective criteria were used to mark some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasks. There was no variati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> types <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>. Questi<strong>on</strong>s for projects and written <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were not cognitively balanced, as <strong>the</strong>ywere pitched ei<strong>the</strong>r too high or too low.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s It is important to incorporate a variety <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> types to prepare learners for <strong>the</strong>examinati<strong>on</strong> situati<strong>on</strong>. The prescribed cognitive weightings should be adhered to. All moderati<strong>on</strong> should be thorough and provide detailed feedback in order toimprove practice. Tasks such as projects have to be designed in such a way that <strong>the</strong>y cover a range <strong>of</strong>assessment standards.MATHEMATICS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> assessed tasks Tasks were set locally and several schools had <strong>the</strong> same investigati<strong>on</strong>s. These weremostly elementary, or c<strong>on</strong>sisted <strong>of</strong> previous test or examinati<strong>on</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s. Special comm<strong>on</strong> tests were set by <strong>the</strong> province for <strong>the</strong> under-performing schools,and written in March and June. Each c<strong>on</strong>sisted <strong>of</strong> two papers. The c<strong>on</strong>tentcoverage was good; however, typographical errors were found and <strong>the</strong>re was anincomplete diagram in <strong>the</strong> June test paper 2. There was also a serious error in both<strong>the</strong> March paper 2 and <strong>the</strong> memorandum.185
The cognitive demand <strong>of</strong> investigati<strong>on</strong>s was generally low and very little problemsolvingwas included. Comm<strong>on</strong> tests were set specifically for <strong>the</strong> underperforming schools. There was agood spread <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s testing knowledge, routine procedures and complexprocedures, but an under-emphasis <strong>on</strong> problem solving in <strong>the</strong> March papers. Investigati<strong>on</strong>s: Just about every ma<strong>the</strong>matical soluti<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tained major errors. Comm<strong>on</strong> tests: Both <strong>the</strong> tests and <strong>the</strong> memoranda were well typed and easy to use.There were no alternative soluti<strong>on</strong>s although many could have been provided. The assignments were mainly cut-and-pasted from previous tests and NSCexaminati<strong>on</strong> papers, and were very difficult to follow. No comments were made <strong>on</strong> mark allocati<strong>on</strong>.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> across different levelsMost <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> educator files had been moderated at HOD, cluster and district level, but <strong>the</strong>moderati<strong>on</strong> instrument used was designed to check for compliance <strong>on</strong>ly.Feedback and supportThere was very little evidence <strong>of</strong> feedback by subject heads. The moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentcomprised ticks and crosses with very few comments.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practiceThe June papers had an adequate number <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s at <strong>the</strong> problem-solving level.Moreover, <strong>the</strong> verified teachers’ files had been moderated at school, cluster and districtlevels.Areas for improvement Comm<strong>on</strong> tests needed rigorous moderati<strong>on</strong> and pro<strong>of</strong>-reading. Teachers needed much greater c<strong>on</strong>tent knowledge, especially in schools in remoteareas. Teachers needed c<strong>on</strong>tinuous support <strong>on</strong> how to set better investigati<strong>on</strong>s andassignments at <strong>the</strong> correct level without using questi<strong>on</strong>s that are already in <strong>the</strong>comm<strong>on</strong> domain.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> investigati<strong>on</strong>s and assignments at provincial level should be providedas a strategy to support under-performing schools. The inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> alternative soluti<strong>on</strong>s for all assignments should be encouraged. A greater emphasis <strong>on</strong> problem-solving questi<strong>on</strong>s is needed.186
Training in specific secti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> curriculum should be put in place in order forteachers to increase <strong>the</strong>ir subject knowledge.HISTORY<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> assessed tasksThere was a tendency to use previous questi<strong>on</strong> papers without adjusting for source-basedand extended writing tasks. Standardised tests were set by <strong>the</strong> provincial educati<strong>on</strong>department (PED). In some schools <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence that <strong>the</strong> historical enquiry thatcommenced in Grade 10 had been m<strong>on</strong>itored.Cognitive levels were addressed in terms <strong>of</strong> subject guidelines. The distributi<strong>on</strong> andc<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> cognitive domains was evident at <strong>the</strong> setting stage <strong>of</strong> tasks and <strong>the</strong>c<strong>on</strong>trolled tests. The educators administered standardised tests that were set by <strong>the</strong>Department <strong>of</strong> Educati<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong>se were pitched at <strong>the</strong> correct cognitive levels. TheJune examinati<strong>on</strong> was also a provincial paper.No comments were made <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> appropriateness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking tool or <strong>on</strong> markallocati<strong>on</strong>.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> across different levelsThere were no comments.Feedback and supportThere were no comments.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice The portfolio system was well organised and managed, and easily accessible. The portfolios presented a clear picture <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> status <strong>of</strong> History teaching in <strong>the</strong>province. It was evident that SBA had been integrated into <strong>the</strong> teaching and learning <strong>of</strong>History and was not regarded as an ‘add-<strong>on</strong>’. The use <strong>of</strong> diagnostic analysis sheets gave <strong>the</strong> educator a detailed overview <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>learners’ performance in a test.Areas for improvement The curriculum advisor in <strong>on</strong>e regi<strong>on</strong> was not involved in any kind <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>. In some schools <strong>the</strong> heritage assignment mark was not reflected <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> mark sheet.187
There was too much reliance <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> previous nati<strong>on</strong>al examinati<strong>on</strong> papers asSBA tasks.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Cluster/district moderati<strong>on</strong> should be more rigorous and more frequent, and shouldbe undertaken by <strong>the</strong> subject advisors. Where <strong>the</strong> HOD is not a subject specialist, <strong>the</strong> cluster leader should assist a school toensure that assessment is d<strong>on</strong>e in terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> SBA document. Teachers need to be orientated <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> various forms <strong>of</strong> assessment, especiallyextended writing and <strong>the</strong> proper administrati<strong>on</strong> and use <strong>of</strong> a rubric for this secti<strong>on</strong>. The identificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> best practices is encouraged in order to support schools. The heritage tasks should be c<strong>on</strong>tinuously m<strong>on</strong>itored and assessed. A variety <strong>of</strong> sources, such as visuals, statistics and texts, need to be used for sourcebasedand extended writing tasks.LIFE ORIENTATION<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> assessed tasksAll tasks assessed <strong>the</strong> relevant c<strong>on</strong>tent, which was appropriately pitched for Grade 12.Various questi<strong>on</strong>ing styles were used. One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> districts used <strong>the</strong> Gauteng SBAs withoutamending <strong>the</strong>m at all. Moreover, <strong>on</strong>e questi<strong>on</strong> was outside <strong>the</strong> LOs and ASs, which wouldhave disadvantaged learners.The SBA written tasks were pitched appropriately and required extensive research <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> learners. The tasks were divided into various activities with varying levels <strong>of</strong>difficulty. The Gauteng tasks were appropriately pitched, but <strong>the</strong>y might pose a challengeto <strong>the</strong> teacher who had to assess <strong>the</strong> tasks.A comm<strong>on</strong> June examinati<strong>on</strong> was written by some schools. This paper was well craftedand set at <strong>the</strong> appropriate cognitive level. However, <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s in Secti<strong>on</strong> C did nothave <strong>the</strong> same weighting and were not at an appropriate level.In Secti<strong>on</strong> A <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d paper (uMkhanyakude District), which was written by allselected schools, <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s were relevant. In Secti<strong>on</strong> B <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s were alsorelevant and thought-provoking. However, in Secti<strong>on</strong> C <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s were not <strong>of</strong> equaldifficulty.The rubrics and memoranda were appropriate and neatly typed, and <strong>the</strong> mark allocati<strong>on</strong>was clearly indicated. The use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> matrix as a marking tool posed challenges for manyeducators.188
The PET implementati<strong>on</strong> was a challenge. Evidence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> assessment tools formarking some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> activities was not submitted, and marks for participati<strong>on</strong> andmovement were always high.The mark allocati<strong>on</strong> was generally appropriate, except in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> PET, as indicatedabove.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> across different levelsNo evidence <strong>of</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong> could be found. Although a comm<strong>on</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paperwas used, no evidence <strong>of</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was included.Feedback and supportEvidence <strong>of</strong> general support by subject advisors was found in all files. The fact that <strong>the</strong> filesc<strong>on</strong>tained completed checklists is a sign that <strong>the</strong>y had been checked for compliance.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice All files were well organised and easy to navigate. Evidence <strong>of</strong> district support was reflected in all files. Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> written tasks showed a realistic and stabilising process. The questi<strong>on</strong> papers used were appropriate.Areas for improvement PET was assessed inappropriately. All learners scored between 80 and 100%. Tasks from o<strong>the</strong>r provinces had to be properly moderated and improved beforebeing used. In <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d questi<strong>on</strong> paper <strong>on</strong>ly three alternatives were provided in multiplechoicequesti<strong>on</strong>s.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Training should be provided <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> assessment <strong>of</strong> PET. The PET mark compromises <strong>the</strong> au<strong>the</strong>nticity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> final Life Orientati<strong>on</strong> mark. The pre-moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> tasks from o<strong>the</strong>r provinces is essential. The examinati<strong>on</strong> guidelines must be c<strong>on</strong>sulted <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> opti<strong>on</strong>s required formultiple-choice questi<strong>on</strong>s.189
LIMPOPOACCOUNTING<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> assessed tasks The questi<strong>on</strong>s provided in <strong>the</strong> project task in general were <strong>the</strong>oretical and notrelevant to Accounting learners in Grade 12. The c<strong>on</strong>tent was below standard andoutside <strong>the</strong> prescribed scope <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent at this level. The assessment tasks were generally pitched at lower- and medium-order levels.Moreover, <strong>the</strong> prescribed tax<strong>on</strong>omy norm was not c<strong>on</strong>sidered when setting <strong>the</strong>tasks. The marking tools that had been selected and used to mark <strong>the</strong> assessment taskswere appropriate. It was found that <strong>the</strong> marking tools did not c<strong>on</strong>sider <strong>the</strong> allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> method maskswhere expected and, where applied, <strong>the</strong>y were inc<strong>on</strong>sistent.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> across different levelsAlthough an instrument had been used for establishing compliance, <strong>the</strong> quality andcognitive demand <strong>of</strong> tasks were neglected across all levels <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>.Feedback and supportThere was no evidence <strong>of</strong> support from <strong>the</strong> school hierarchy, or from <strong>the</strong> district or clusterlevels. Effective internal moderati<strong>on</strong> across <strong>the</strong> system c<strong>on</strong>tinued to be neglected.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice The province was str<strong>on</strong>g <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> statistical analysis <strong>of</strong> provincially set assessment tasks. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking tools were well c<strong>on</strong>structed and could be applied fairly. Thiswas evident in schools from Sekhukhune District.Areas for improvement Assessment tasks (including <strong>the</strong> mid-year examinati<strong>on</strong>) satisfied mainly <strong>the</strong> lowerandmedium-order questi<strong>on</strong>s, while higher-order questi<strong>on</strong>s were not well covered. Itwas clear that scenario-type questi<strong>on</strong>s and problem-solving questi<strong>on</strong>s had beenavoided so that marking would be easy and learners might score high marks. There was evidence <strong>of</strong> over-reliance <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> previous year’s papers. The setting <strong>of</strong>tasks lacked creativity and originality. Over-assessment <strong>of</strong> written <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s was observed in <strong>the</strong> verificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> selecteddistricts. Theoretical questi<strong>on</strong>s were not directly related to Accounting at Grade 12 level.190
The moderati<strong>on</strong> instrument had been designed to establish a level <strong>of</strong> compliancewith <strong>the</strong> PED requirements across different moderati<strong>on</strong> levels. Method marks were not awarded where <strong>the</strong>y were expected.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s The use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> appropriate weighting as prescribed for cognitive levels is crucial. Thequesti<strong>on</strong>s should adhere to <strong>the</strong> prescribed cognitive norms. Teachers should be encouraged to design <strong>the</strong>ir own assessment tasks in line with andsimilar to <strong>the</strong> standards set for <strong>the</strong> final examinati<strong>on</strong>. This will give teachers valuableexposure. Inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> higher-order questi<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> scenario-based questi<strong>on</strong>s should beencouraged. This will ensure that learners <strong>of</strong> different capabilities areaccommodated. The c<strong>on</strong>tent prescribed for Grade 12 should be adhered to. An appropriate moderati<strong>on</strong> instrument should be designed. <strong>Quality</strong> should beaccommodated, and not merely compliance. Rigorous moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marking tools is crucial and must be implemented. Markingshould be c<strong>on</strong>sistent and thoroughly checked.LIFE SCIENCES<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> assessed tasks Incorrect c<strong>on</strong>tent was used as <strong>the</strong> basis for a research project in <strong>the</strong> Waterberg-Mogalakwena District. The districts administered a comm<strong>on</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> paper, but<strong>the</strong>re was duplicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s and inc<strong>on</strong>sistent mark allocati<strong>on</strong>. The prescribed tax<strong>on</strong>omy levels were not c<strong>on</strong>sidered in ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> assignment or <strong>the</strong>mid-year examinati<strong>on</strong> paper. Although <strong>the</strong> tool designed for marking <strong>the</strong> mid-year examinati<strong>on</strong> was appropriate,<strong>the</strong>re was a wr<strong>on</strong>g answer. The allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks for <strong>the</strong> essay questi<strong>on</strong> was not clear. There werediscrepancies in <strong>the</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marks. The use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> memorandum was c<strong>on</strong>sistent and teachers indicated how <strong>the</strong>yallocated <strong>the</strong> marks. The allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks was largely unfair as <strong>the</strong>re were inaccuracies.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> across different levelsThere was evidence <strong>of</strong> some internal verificati<strong>on</strong>, as <strong>the</strong>re were completed schoolmoderati<strong>on</strong> forms indicating compliance. There was also a curriculum specialist tool withcomments.191
Feedback and supportThere was very little evidence <strong>of</strong> feedback by <strong>the</strong> subject head to <strong>the</strong> educators. Therewere some comments by <strong>the</strong> curriculum specialists, but a serious lack <strong>of</strong> informative inputthat would bring about improvement in <strong>the</strong> assessment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practiceSome moderati<strong>on</strong> was d<strong>on</strong>e at various levels, that is, school, cluster/district, curriculumspecialist and provincial.Areas for improvement The distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent in terms <strong>of</strong> LOs and cognitive levels for <strong>the</strong> mid-yearexaminati<strong>on</strong> was unbalanced. The incorrect alignment <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent used for <strong>the</strong> Term 2 research project assignmentwas noted across selected schools from <strong>the</strong> Greater Sekhukhune district. An essay task administered in <strong>the</strong> Waterberg-Mogalakwena District was unclear interms <strong>of</strong> instructi<strong>on</strong>s and in most cases <strong>the</strong> marking was not accurate. The rubric used for <strong>the</strong> marking <strong>of</strong> an assignment administered by selected schools in<strong>the</strong> Greater Sekhukhune District was vague and subjective.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s The marking guideline for <strong>the</strong> assignment in <strong>the</strong> Waterberg-Mogalakwena Districtmust be rearranged to make it user-friendly. Examinati<strong>on</strong> guidelines must be c<strong>on</strong>sulted when setting examinati<strong>on</strong>s and tests toassist teachers in setting tasks that are <strong>of</strong> a good standard. Qualitative and detailed inputs from internal moderati<strong>on</strong> must be used to improve<strong>the</strong> teaching and learning.LIFE ORIENTATION<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> assessed tasks The prescribed LOs were adequately covered and <strong>the</strong> expected skills were tested. Agood provincial mid-year examinati<strong>on</strong> was set which complied with <strong>the</strong> SAG. PET was a challenge in respect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> interpretati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> SAG requirements, <strong>the</strong>formulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> instructi<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>the</strong> relevance <strong>of</strong> assessment tools, and <strong>the</strong> calculati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>PET marks for participati<strong>on</strong> and movement performance. The spread <strong>of</strong> tasks and questi<strong>on</strong>s across <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels was acceptable. The relevance <strong>of</strong> assessment tools for PET was questi<strong>on</strong>able, however.192
Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> across different levelsStandardised moderati<strong>on</strong> tools were completed for all schools at district level. The schoolmoderati<strong>on</strong> tool was, however, merely a checklist.Feedback and supportAt district level <strong>the</strong>re was developmental feedback, but at school level <strong>the</strong>re was limitedevidence <strong>of</strong> feedback. Quarterly meetings were held with <strong>the</strong> district <strong>of</strong>ficials todetermine support acti<strong>on</strong> to be taken. Support meetings were <strong>the</strong>n in turn c<strong>on</strong>ductedwith educators.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice Educator files were well arranged and all <strong>the</strong> required documents were in place. The move towards comm<strong>on</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s and tasks was commendable, but <strong>the</strong>structure and technical criteria have to be revisited. In some educators’ files a moderati<strong>on</strong> register was included indicating <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong>moderati<strong>on</strong>.Areas for improvement At Dennis Mataba Senior Sec<strong>on</strong>dary <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence <strong>of</strong> PET implementati<strong>on</strong>.Moreover, no rubric had been included to indicate how marks were awarded. Calculati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> PET marks submitted with <strong>the</strong> teacher file was incorrect. At George Langa <strong>the</strong>re was no Term 2 mark sheet for PET. At Mashakwaneng High School learners participated in a board game <strong>on</strong>ly, whichdid not give much scope for <strong>the</strong> evaluati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> movement. No assessment tool wasfound to substantiate <strong>the</strong> marks awarded to learners.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Moderati<strong>on</strong> should include qualitative and developmental feedback to teachersand not just checklists. Teachers who are struggling to implement tasks should be assisted. This includestraining in <strong>the</strong> setting <strong>of</strong> formal tasks, twinning <strong>of</strong> schools with o<strong>the</strong>rs that do qualitywork, and providing schools with models. The assessment tools for PET should be developed according to <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>task. The tools should be quality assured at both district and provincial levels as <strong>the</strong>ydo not comply with <strong>the</strong> SAG. Training <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> PET tasks andassessment tools is <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> utmost importance. The use <strong>of</strong> generic marking tools should be discouraged as <strong>the</strong>y do not address <strong>the</strong>specific nature <strong>of</strong> a task. Teachers’ files should c<strong>on</strong>tain pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> all assessment d<strong>on</strong>e, including assessmenttasks, assessment tools and mark sheets.193
Moderati<strong>on</strong> at all levels must be c<strong>on</strong>ducted diligently and thoroughly, asshortcomings were detected. Marks had been incorrectly validated. Pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> provincial comm<strong>on</strong> tasks should be available.MPUMALANGAGEOGRAPHY<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> assessed tasksThe assessment tasks were derived from previous questi<strong>on</strong> papers and were <strong>the</strong>refore upto standard. In some cases Term 2 and 3 work was assessed in Term 1, and this would havedisadvantaged <strong>the</strong> learners. The March test and <strong>the</strong> mid-year examinati<strong>on</strong> werestandardised. In most schools <strong>the</strong> practical task was a comm<strong>on</strong> paper which was a copy<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> November/supplementary questi<strong>on</strong> papers. Generally, all <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers werecut-and-paste copies <strong>of</strong> previous papers.Although previous questi<strong>on</strong> papers were used, <strong>the</strong> cognitive demand <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasks was notbalanced as <strong>the</strong> whole paper had not been used, and in some cases <strong>on</strong>ly level-1questi<strong>on</strong>s had been selected. Educators needed to make use <strong>of</strong> an analysis grid to helpbalance <strong>the</strong> weightings, and to modify <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s taken from previous papers ortextbooks.In some cases <strong>the</strong> memorandum did not match <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper. The rubric developedfor <strong>the</strong> research/assignment did not have balanced descriptors, which would lead tobunching and encourage teachers to award average marks if <strong>the</strong>y were not sure aboutlearners’ work.Mark allocati<strong>on</strong> was indicated by ticks <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> original memo, but where educators hadcopied <strong>the</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>ses by hand, <strong>the</strong> mark allocati<strong>on</strong> was <strong>of</strong>ten left out.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> across different levelsModerati<strong>on</strong> was c<strong>on</strong>ducted in different colour pens, but it was not always clear whichlevel <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> was which. Comments merely indicated ‘satisfactory’ and did notfocus <strong>on</strong> cognitive demand and c<strong>on</strong>tent assessed. Accordingly, this c<strong>on</strong>stitutedm<strong>on</strong>itoring ra<strong>the</strong>r than moderati<strong>on</strong>.194
Feedback and supportFeedback was detected at all levels, but was generic ra<strong>the</strong>r than directed at specifictasks.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice All <strong>the</strong> schools completed <strong>the</strong> four prescribed tasks for Terms 1 and 2 as prescribed. All <strong>the</strong> assessment instruments were available, including <strong>the</strong> map and <strong>the</strong>photograph.Areas for improvement Previous questi<strong>on</strong> papers should be used as a framework to develop new tasks for aparticular year. Tasks should be pre-moderated to ensure that <strong>the</strong>y meet <strong>the</strong> requirements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>SAG and that previous questi<strong>on</strong> papers are not used. The colour <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> pens used at <strong>the</strong> various levels <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> should bestandardised.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s When designing tasks, educators should c<strong>on</strong>sult <strong>the</strong> relevant policies. Over-dependence <strong>on</strong> previous questi<strong>on</strong> papers should be discouraged as itcompromises <strong>the</strong> reliability <strong>of</strong> assessment tasks. There is a need to train teachers to set/develop <strong>the</strong>ir own assessment tasks. Using previous questi<strong>on</strong> papers also disadvantages learners when <strong>the</strong>y are assessed<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent that has not yet been taught. Moderati<strong>on</strong> should be developmental, and c<strong>on</strong>structive feedback should be given.LIFE SCIENCES<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> assessed tasksThe specifics <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasks differed in each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> two districts. In <strong>on</strong>e district all <strong>the</strong> taskswere comm<strong>on</strong> tasks, while in ano<strong>the</strong>r district <strong>on</strong>ly some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m were. The tasks generallylacked creativity and c<strong>on</strong>tained questi<strong>on</strong>s from previous questi<strong>on</strong> papers. The practicaltask and <strong>the</strong> assignment were not valid as <strong>the</strong>y did not assess what was supposed to beassessed according to <strong>the</strong> SAG. No marks were awarded for <strong>the</strong> actual doing <strong>of</strong> a task. Itwould appear that teachers did not understand <strong>the</strong> SAG requirements.It was difficult to determine <strong>the</strong> cognitive demand as analysis grids had not been drawnup. In general, <strong>the</strong> practical task and <strong>the</strong> assignment focused <strong>on</strong> lower cognitive skills:<strong>the</strong>y did not require ‘doing’, but were merely simple <strong>the</strong>oretical questi<strong>on</strong>s. In many cases195
<strong>the</strong> tasks/assignments did not meet <strong>the</strong> requirements <strong>of</strong> an assignment as indicated in <strong>the</strong>SAG. The March c<strong>on</strong>trolled test and <strong>the</strong> June examinati<strong>on</strong> were comm<strong>on</strong> tasks, but <strong>the</strong>questi<strong>on</strong>s had been incorrectly evaluated, with what was given as higher-order questi<strong>on</strong>sactually being lower order.The marking tools for <strong>the</strong> practical and <strong>the</strong> assignment were inappropriate, but <strong>the</strong>marking memoranda for <strong>the</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> test and <strong>the</strong> June examinati<strong>on</strong> were acceptable.However, <strong>the</strong> rubric for <strong>on</strong>e task was unreliable.Where a marking memorandum was used <strong>the</strong> allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks was appropriate.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> across different levelsThere was limited evidence <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> at all levels. Although <strong>the</strong>re was evidence insome schools <strong>of</strong> a checklist, <strong>the</strong>re was no c<strong>on</strong>structive moderati<strong>on</strong> that would lead toimproved quality. In general, <strong>the</strong> quality and rigour <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> was unsatisfactory.Feedback and supportAppropriate feedback and support was lacking. Moderati<strong>on</strong> instruments did not includecriteria for quality, <strong>on</strong>ly general compliance. Moreover, <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence <strong>of</strong> input bysubject advisors or facilitators in <strong>the</strong> files moderated by <strong>Umalusi</strong>.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practiceThe implementati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> cluster tasks was an area <strong>of</strong> good practice.Areas for improvement While <strong>the</strong> implementati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> cluster tasks/district tasks was to beencouraged, <strong>the</strong>y require thorough planning and rigorous moderati<strong>on</strong> by specialists. There was no distincti<strong>on</strong> between m<strong>on</strong>itoring and moderati<strong>on</strong>. The importance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> process appeared to have been ignored. Recycling <strong>of</strong> previous questi<strong>on</strong> papers, tasks and assignments was taking place <strong>on</strong> alarge scale. This practice disempowered teachers and prevented <strong>the</strong>m from beingcreative. Appropriate standard-setting was lacking. The absence <strong>of</strong> grids made it difficult to analyse <strong>the</strong> cognitive weighting <strong>of</strong> tasks andtests.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Teachers should be encouraged to design additi<strong>on</strong>al tasks. These could <strong>the</strong>n bemoderated to create a bank <strong>of</strong> exemplars <strong>of</strong> comparable standard for <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> cluster/district/province.196
By doing this, <strong>the</strong> designing and standardising <strong>of</strong> tasks will have been d<strong>on</strong>ebeforehand, and <strong>the</strong>re will have been time to address issues <strong>of</strong> standards. Improved moderati<strong>on</strong> would make a great difference to <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> work ingeneral. Proper feedback should be given so that teachers are praised for good work, as wellas being informed about <strong>the</strong>ir shortcomings.LIFE ORIENTATION<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> assessed tasksThere was no evidence that task 1 was moderated. Instructi<strong>on</strong>s to learners were not clear.Old sources had been copied, or irrelevant sources used to assess certain skills. Part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>task was not at <strong>the</strong> required cognitive level. The layout was not learner-friendly.Task 2 was indicated as a research task, but no clear instructi<strong>on</strong>s were given. There wereno research sources or material and <strong>the</strong> technical quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> task needed seriousattenti<strong>on</strong>.In <strong>the</strong> June examinati<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper was not in line with <strong>the</strong> current SAGdocument. The technical standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper was low and <strong>the</strong> structure <strong>of</strong> bothsecti<strong>on</strong>s was incorrect. Very limited c<strong>on</strong>tent was assessed in Secti<strong>on</strong> C.The questi<strong>on</strong>s were generally <strong>of</strong> a lower cognitive demand and posed limited challenges.The memorandum did not always reflect <strong>the</strong> cognitive demands <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>. Therubrics were too generic and <strong>the</strong> rubrics and <strong>the</strong> activities did not corresp<strong>on</strong>d. The rubricdesigned to assess running was used for <strong>the</strong> assessment <strong>of</strong> dance.The marks from Bohlabela suggested that <strong>the</strong> marking tool may not have been appliedc<strong>on</strong>sistently. Most learners scored very high marks in <strong>the</strong> first term. The PET generally scored100% for attendance, implying that no learners were ever absent.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> across different levelsThere was no evidence <strong>of</strong> any moderati<strong>on</strong>. Generally, <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files were in order.Feedback and supportThere was evidence that <strong>the</strong> appropriate documents had been distributed to all schools.Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> files had been checked for compliance.197
Areas <strong>of</strong> good practiceUse <strong>of</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> tasks was noted in some districts. This could be an acceptable tool forsetting acceptable standards.Areas for improvement The tasks lacked cognitive demand. At <strong>on</strong>e school <strong>the</strong> learners’ PET marks were incorrectly calculated and at ano<strong>the</strong>r<strong>the</strong>re was no Term-1 PET mark. At o<strong>the</strong>r schools no memorandum was included for <strong>the</strong> June examinati<strong>on</strong>. The June questi<strong>on</strong> paper was not pitched at Grade 12 level. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> errors were observed in most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasks. Mark allocati<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> spread <strong>of</strong> marks were not indicated in <strong>the</strong> memorandum.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Pre-moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> tasks should be c<strong>on</strong>ducted before tasks are administered. The standard <strong>of</strong> tasks has to be improved by ensuring that <strong>the</strong> prescribed weightingfor cognitive levels is followed. Comm<strong>on</strong> tasks are useful for establishing a comm<strong>on</strong> standard, but <strong>the</strong> tasks must beerror-free, and pitched at <strong>the</strong> appropriate levels. The SAG document should be implemented at all times. The technical aspects <strong>of</strong> tasks and questi<strong>on</strong> papers must be thoroughly moderated. The instrument used to record marks for <strong>the</strong> PET comp<strong>on</strong>ent should be improved toprovide more informati<strong>on</strong> or evidence about <strong>the</strong> marks that are awarded.198
ADDENDUM 2 BMODERATION AND VERIFICATION OF GRADE 12SCHOOL-BASED ASSESSMENT(To be read in c<strong>on</strong>juncti<strong>on</strong> with chapter 2 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> main <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>)PHASE 2: QUALITY ASSURANCE OF LEARNERS’ SBA FILESEASTERN CAPEHISTORYPART 1:FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleTwo districts were invited for moderati<strong>on</strong>; four schools from <strong>on</strong>e and five schools from <strong>the</strong>o<strong>the</strong>r. One teacher’s file and three learners’ files from each school were moderated.The Department <strong>of</strong> Basic Educati<strong>on</strong> (DBE) had worked with all <strong>the</strong> schools that submitted<strong>the</strong>ir documents – <strong>the</strong> DBE had moderated <strong>the</strong> teacher’s file and three to five learners’files from each school.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe instrument encompassed all aspects <strong>of</strong> worthwhile moderati<strong>on</strong>. However, nocompleted instrument was available during <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> sessi<strong>on</strong>.PART 2:VERIFICATION OF LEARNERS’ EVIDENCEMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE actual moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learners’ evidenceAt some schools <strong>the</strong> DBE moderators had re-marked some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> evidence, while at o<strong>the</strong>rschools files were <strong>on</strong>ly checked for compliance with policy. Very few comments werefound, and <strong>the</strong>se focused mainly <strong>on</strong> criteria descriptors from <strong>the</strong> rubric. Norecommendati<strong>on</strong>s were found in <strong>the</strong> moderated sample.199
Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksNo discrepancies were found in <strong>the</strong> marking with rubrics. The marking guidelines wereappropriate and in line with Nati<strong>on</strong>al Senior Certificate (NSC) policy and guidelines. Acomm<strong>on</strong> rubric was used in <strong>the</strong> Eastern Cape to assess <strong>the</strong> heritage assignments. Thisrubric was in order, except that some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> criteria were weighted too heavily. Theanalytical essay rubric was satisfactorily applied in most cases. At two schools <strong>the</strong> markersdid not indicate <strong>the</strong> rubric levels at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> essay and at <strong>on</strong>e school <strong>the</strong> wr<strong>on</strong>grubric was used to mark <strong>the</strong> analytical essay. There was also a tendency to be toogenerous with marks, although in general <strong>the</strong> allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks was fair. Learners shouldbe penalised for simply rewriting sources.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceLearners coped with <strong>the</strong> lower-order but struggled with <strong>the</strong> higher-order questi<strong>on</strong>s. Theability to express <strong>the</strong>mselves in <strong>the</strong>ir sec<strong>on</strong>d/third language was a major challenge forlearners and <strong>the</strong>y needed assistance with <strong>the</strong> structuring <strong>of</strong> sentences and paragraphs.Although learners could write down informati<strong>on</strong>, <strong>the</strong>y struggled to take a stance anddefend or criticise it.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsA well-developed moderati<strong>on</strong> system was in place, although <strong>the</strong>re was little evidencethat tasks were quality-assured at schools before being given to learners. Scriptmoderati<strong>on</strong> at all levels was not rigorous enough, and marks were <strong>of</strong>ten not adapted. Thiscalled into questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> credibility and purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> process.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice The school-based assessment (SBA) process was managed appropriately. A provincial moderati<strong>on</strong> process was in place at various levels. The files were fairly complete and presented a picture <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> status <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> SBA inHistory in <strong>the</strong> province. It would seem that <strong>the</strong> historical inquiry process is established in <strong>the</strong> Eastern Cape. The provincial trial examinati<strong>on</strong> papers were well developed. Comm<strong>on</strong> papers were written in June as well.Areas for improvement Not all files were in order and <strong>the</strong>refore not accessible. The extensive use <strong>of</strong> previous questi<strong>on</strong> papers is a c<strong>on</strong>cern. There is little evidence <strong>of</strong> quality assurance <strong>of</strong> tasks. The process <strong>of</strong> script moderati<strong>on</strong> was not rigorous enough. All tasks should be labelled and include <strong>the</strong> relevant instructi<strong>on</strong>s.200
There were no remarks by teachers in <strong>the</strong> learners’ files. Marks were sometimes recorded incorrectly. The recording sheets were not available in all <strong>the</strong> files. The use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> SAG norms for cognitive levels should be adhered to. Guidance <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> heritage assignment as a provincial initiative needsattenti<strong>on</strong>.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s It is essential that tasks be appropriately quality assured before <strong>the</strong>y are written. The moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> scripts at school level should be rigorous. Teachers should be guided in <strong>the</strong> setting <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> heritage assignment. This assignmenthas to be set around a single key questi<strong>on</strong> and appropriate rubrics have to beapplied to assess <strong>the</strong>se tasks. Guidance is also required <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> proper selecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>au<strong>the</strong>ntic and pers<strong>on</strong>al sources to address <strong>the</strong> formulated key questi<strong>on</strong>. The identificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> best practices is encouraged to support schools.LIFE ORIENTATIONPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleTen poor-performing schools were selected for moderati<strong>on</strong>. The DBE moderated 10schools, five from each district.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsOne <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderators reduced marks drastically, while <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r made minoradjustments. Although this moderati<strong>on</strong> was thorough, it was not rigorous enough. Scriptswere re-marked according to <strong>the</strong> memorandum and <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> tool wasc<strong>on</strong>sistent throughout.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesThe DBE did not leave any <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s behind, and no feedback or comments were made <strong>on</strong>any <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated scripts.Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksThe marking tool was comprehensive and had been pre-approved by <strong>Umalusi</strong>.201
Marking at school level was quite lenient. At times <strong>the</strong> marks were drastically reduced by<strong>the</strong> DBE moderator. Secti<strong>on</strong> A was generally meticulously marked, but Secti<strong>on</strong>s B and Cpresented problems <strong>of</strong> interpretati<strong>on</strong>. In <strong>the</strong>se secti<strong>on</strong>s marking was <strong>of</strong>ten imprecise andmarks were allocated to incorrect answers. It appeared that markers did not alwaysunderstand where to allocate marks. It might be that <strong>the</strong> memorandum had not beendiscussed in <strong>the</strong> province, or that <strong>the</strong> specific teachers had not attended.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceLearners’ marks were inflated, and in some cases allocated more than <strong>the</strong> total afteradding up <strong>the</strong> marks – 24 marks more in <strong>on</strong>e case. Learners battled with CAT incomparis<strong>on</strong> with o<strong>the</strong>r tasks.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsThe head <strong>of</strong> department (HOD) at school level had d<strong>on</strong>e shadow-marking. No marks wereadjusted, as this was a compliance check, and not a qualitative moderati<strong>on</strong> process.District moderati<strong>on</strong> was thorough, however, and in some cases awarded different markswere awarded. Nati<strong>on</strong>al moderati<strong>on</strong> was stringent and had fully complied with <strong>the</strong>expected standard <strong>of</strong> marking.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice District level moderati<strong>on</strong> had been thorough. Nati<strong>on</strong>al moderati<strong>on</strong> had been stringent and fully compliant with <strong>the</strong> memorandum.Areas for improvement There was a lack <strong>of</strong> thorough school-level moderati<strong>on</strong>. There appeared to be a lack <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent teaching. Learners’ c<strong>on</strong>ceptual knowledgeand critical thinking were poor. Learners had a poor grasp <strong>of</strong> how to analyse questi<strong>on</strong>s and provide resp<strong>on</strong>ses. There was poor mastery <strong>of</strong> basic examinati<strong>on</strong> writing skills. At most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> schools marking was too lenient. The two DBE moderators appeared to apply two different standards <strong>of</strong> marking. There was a huge discrepancy between <strong>the</strong> internal assessment and <strong>the</strong> CAT marks. Physical Educati<strong>on</strong> (PE) marks remain suspect and have a negative impact <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>au<strong>the</strong>nticity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> final Life Orientati<strong>on</strong> mark.202
Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Moderati<strong>on</strong> at school level has to be tightened up. HOD training in moderati<strong>on</strong>processes and practices needs to be c<strong>on</strong>ducted to ensure that school managersunderstand <strong>the</strong>se processes and <strong>the</strong>ir importance. It is vital to teach <strong>the</strong> Life Orientati<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent. Higher thinking skills must be taught so that learners are able to solve problems, andcritically analyse, evaluate and syn<strong>the</strong>sise informati<strong>on</strong>. The percepti<strong>on</strong> (in Life Orientati<strong>on</strong>) that every answer is correct has to beeradicated. Educators need to understand marking processes, and this may requiretraining. Uniformity in approach <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> part <strong>of</strong> DBE moderators is essential. They shouldoperate as a team and be equally stringent.MATHEMATICSPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleFiles were provided from five schools in each <strong>of</strong> two pre-selected districts, Fort Beaufortand Bizana. The DBE moderators had moderated about 10% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> files, although <strong>the</strong> workd<strong>on</strong>e was not readily evident.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe moderati<strong>on</strong> instrument was not available.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesSome <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasks had been moderated in detail. However, <strong>the</strong> external moderator hadmisgivings about <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> both <strong>the</strong> internal and <strong>the</strong> DBE moderators and bothmoderators awarded less than <strong>the</strong> maximum for correct answers in seven cases.Marking <strong>of</strong> tasksAt Bizana <strong>the</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> tasks were all <strong>of</strong> a high standard. Assignments selected fromprevious questi<strong>on</strong> papers were <strong>of</strong> an appropriate standard, but teachers were unable toset <strong>the</strong>ir own questi<strong>on</strong>s. The introducti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> papers had raised <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>assessment tasks. The tools were mostly appropriate and <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> marking was203
generally acceptable. At <strong>on</strong>e school <strong>the</strong> marking was particularly poor, with <strong>the</strong> teacherawarding 0 for answers that deserved full marks.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performance As all <strong>the</strong> schools selected were underperforming, <strong>the</strong> results were obviously biased.According to a table compiled by <strong>the</strong> external moderator, 66 out <strong>of</strong> 235 candidatesscored below 10% in June. N<strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> learners in <strong>the</strong> Fort Beaufort district passed<strong>the</strong> June examinati<strong>on</strong>.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsThe Bizana moderator was excellent and produced original questi<strong>on</strong>s and accuratemarking memoranda. There was <strong>the</strong>refore a marked improvement in this area. Systemswere in place to ensure that moderati<strong>on</strong> took place, although <strong>the</strong> quality varied fromschool to school. Although <strong>the</strong>re was checking <strong>of</strong> compliance, actual qualitativemoderati<strong>on</strong> was seldom d<strong>on</strong>e. There was a lack <strong>of</strong> expertise in <strong>the</strong> schools for meaningfulma<strong>the</strong>matics moderati<strong>on</strong>.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practiceThe standard <strong>of</strong> tasks had improved since <strong>the</strong> previous external moderati<strong>on</strong>.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was now in place.Areas for improvement Evidence suggested that very little teaching was occurring in most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> classrooms.Teaching thus needed a great deal <strong>of</strong> attenti<strong>on</strong>. There was urgent need for teachers to be properly m<strong>on</strong>itored. There appears to be a critical shortage <strong>of</strong> appropriately qualified teachers in <strong>the</strong>province. There is an urgent need for a Ma<strong>the</strong>matics coordinator in this province. The Ma<strong>the</strong>matics <strong>of</strong>ficial in Bizana had given better guidance to <strong>the</strong> teachers than<strong>the</strong> <strong>on</strong>e in Fort Beaufort.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>sThe areas for improvement should be attended to.204
PHYSICAL SCIENCESPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleThe size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE-moderated sample was 0,53% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total number <strong>of</strong> learnersregistered to write Physical Sciences in <strong>the</strong> Eastern Cape in 2012. The moderati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>cannot be <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed up<strong>on</strong> and adherence can <strong>on</strong>ly be judged through <strong>the</strong> DBE instrumentwhich was made available, and <strong>the</strong> comments in <strong>the</strong> files that <strong>the</strong>y looked at. Commentswere thin and mostly chastising, and reprimanded learners for <strong>the</strong>ir poor performance.There were no comments <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> SBA tasks and <strong>the</strong>ir answers in generalbecause <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence that <strong>the</strong>y had been moderated by <strong>the</strong> DBE. There was<strong>the</strong>refore little evidence <strong>of</strong> adherence to <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> requirements in <strong>the</strong> taskssampled by <strong>Umalusi</strong>.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe moderati<strong>on</strong> tool was appropriate and it evaluated <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> marking. Therewas no evidence in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> sample that <strong>the</strong> research project had been moderated,although it made up 20% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total SBA mark in <strong>the</strong> NSC. The tool was, however,inappropriate in <strong>the</strong> sense that it did not make provisi<strong>on</strong> for <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> physicalinvestigati<strong>on</strong>s and research projects.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesThe applicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> tool was c<strong>on</strong>sistent with its c<strong>on</strong>tents. However, <strong>the</strong>DBE did not moderate <strong>the</strong> tasks, that is, <strong>the</strong> actual questi<strong>on</strong> papers and c<strong>on</strong>trol tests. Themany errors that <strong>the</strong> teachers made were not corrected by <strong>the</strong> DBE. Moreover, manyerrors were found in <strong>the</strong> September examinati<strong>on</strong> papers, <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d c<strong>on</strong>trol tests, <strong>the</strong>research projects and <strong>the</strong>ir answers. These had not been moderated by ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>provincial educati<strong>on</strong> department (PED) or <strong>the</strong> DBE.In most cases <strong>the</strong> first page <strong>of</strong> a task was signed and a comment written was made.However, <strong>the</strong> comments did not say anything about <strong>the</strong> learners’ mistakes. Moreover, <strong>the</strong>comments were chastising, and not remedial. No recommendati<strong>on</strong>s appeared in <strong>the</strong>moderated sample.205
Marking <strong>of</strong> tasksOnly <strong>on</strong>e criteri<strong>on</strong> was directly related to marking, namely: “Is <strong>the</strong> marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> learnerevidence accurate?” However, this was not sufficient to be a good guide for <strong>the</strong> DBEmoderator. There was no menti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sistency, feedback or correcting learners’mistakes, or fairness. In additi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>the</strong>re were errors in <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum that <strong>the</strong>DBE moderators did not pick up; indeed, <strong>the</strong>y used <strong>the</strong>m for marking.The cases where <strong>the</strong> DBE actually marked a task, <strong>the</strong> results were excellent And <strong>the</strong>re wasgood corresp<strong>on</strong>dence am<strong>on</strong>g <strong>the</strong> markers. Although <strong>the</strong> marking tool was notappropriate, <strong>the</strong> marking by <strong>the</strong> moderators was.The feedback however was inappropriate.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performancePerformance in <strong>the</strong> September examinati<strong>on</strong> was low. The questi<strong>on</strong> papers werechallenging with cognitive levels <strong>of</strong> difficulty estimated to be more or less in line withrequirements.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsInternal moderati<strong>on</strong> at schools was evident and had taken place at school, cluster anddistrict levels. Shadow-marking had been d<strong>on</strong>e without much genuine moderati<strong>on</strong>.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice There was evidence <strong>of</strong> re-marking, feedback and m<strong>on</strong>itoring at school, cluster anddistrict levels. The scope <strong>of</strong> SBA implementati<strong>on</strong> could be seen.Areas <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cern Averages should be shown <strong>on</strong> mark sheets. All marks should be recorded. Only research projects that can achieve an appropriate spread <strong>of</strong> marks should beselected for SBA. All assessment tasks should be accompanied by a completed tax<strong>on</strong>omy grid. Moderati<strong>on</strong> should be improved. One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> major problems in <strong>the</strong> province is <strong>the</strong> large number <strong>of</strong> Science teachersin temporary posts who may not be qualified or experienced enough to do <strong>the</strong> remarking.206
Recommendati<strong>on</strong>sModerati<strong>on</strong> should be viewed as a process that can ensure that <strong>the</strong> mark each learnergets is <strong>on</strong>e that <strong>the</strong>y deserve to get in each assessment task. All issues that prevent fromthis being achieved should be addressed urgently.FREE STATEACCOUNTINGPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleRandomly selected learners’ files from five schools per district, that is, 10 schools, weresubjected to SBA moderati<strong>on</strong>. The DBE moderated three schools from each district indepth. The DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were not included in <strong>the</strong> files, however, so it was notpossible to establish how thorough <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> had been and what <strong>the</strong>ir findingswere. They had, however, picked up errors in two assessment tasks that <strong>the</strong> teachers and<strong>the</strong> internal moderators had missed.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe tool was not available for individual external moderators.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ files There was no DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> available to evaluate <strong>the</strong> quality and standard.Inputs and comments in <strong>the</strong> files enabled <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderator to observe that <strong>the</strong>moderati<strong>on</strong> had been thoroughly d<strong>on</strong>e.Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksThe marking tools were generally appropriate and <strong>the</strong>ir applicati<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sistent. Both <strong>the</strong>June and <strong>the</strong> trial examinati<strong>on</strong>s had been set provincially, and <strong>the</strong> standard wascomparable to <strong>the</strong> NCS examinati<strong>on</strong>s. The tasks were well designed with appropriatemarking tools including method marks for c<strong>on</strong>sequential errors. In <strong>the</strong> Fezile Dabi District all<strong>the</strong> sampled schools had d<strong>on</strong>e <strong>the</strong> same seven tasks. The marking tools were generally <strong>of</strong>good quality.207
In Ma<strong>the</strong>o District five <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasks were comm<strong>on</strong> tasks, and two were set individually. Thelatter were <strong>of</strong> varying quality, with <strong>the</strong> tasks <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong>e school, Reamohetse Sec<strong>on</strong>dary,being satisfactory.Because <strong>the</strong> marking tools were fairly well designed, <strong>the</strong> allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks was fair.Appropriate use was made <strong>of</strong> method marks.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceIn most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> schools sampled, <strong>the</strong> marks <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> class tasks (<str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>/case study) and <strong>the</strong>project were significantly higher than <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trol test scores. Theremight, thus, have been copying or collaborati<strong>on</strong> am<strong>on</strong>g learners, or <strong>the</strong>y might havereceived additi<strong>on</strong>al support in doing <strong>the</strong> class tasks and <strong>the</strong> project. This raised <strong>the</strong> overallSBA mark unrealistically in six <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sampled schools.The marks achieved in both <strong>the</strong> June and <strong>the</strong> September examinati<strong>on</strong>s were very poor inall <strong>the</strong> sampled schools. Reas<strong>on</strong>s for this might include poor discipline, lack <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tentknowledge <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> teachers, ineffective formative assessment in <strong>the</strong> classroom,poor teaching plan, or disjuncture between <strong>the</strong> teaching plan and <strong>the</strong> assessment plan.This does not auger well for <strong>the</strong> province, as <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s were <strong>of</strong> a good standard.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsMost <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files reflected several moderati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s from school, cluster, districtand provincial level. The quality <strong>of</strong> advice given to teachers was variable, ranging from atick-box approach to generalisati<strong>on</strong>s or a focus <strong>on</strong> administrative issues. In o<strong>the</strong>r cases <strong>the</strong>school-based HOD and subject advisors gave c<strong>on</strong>structive and practical advice, whichappeared to have had little effect <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> ultimate achievement in <strong>the</strong> sampled schools.There were no significant inc<strong>on</strong>sistencies in <strong>the</strong> marking, although sometimes moderati<strong>on</strong>appeared to be a shadow-marking exercise. Mark sheets were not adjusted toaccommodate moderated marks.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practiceIn <strong>the</strong> Fezile Dabi District all seven tasks (provincially set) were <strong>of</strong> good quality and werec<strong>on</strong>sistent with NSC standards.In <strong>the</strong> Ma<strong>the</strong>o District <strong>the</strong> five major tasks were <strong>the</strong> same as those used in <strong>the</strong> Fezile DabiDistrict, and were <strong>of</strong> a good standard. Reamohetse Sec<strong>on</strong>dary produced two good tasks.Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> HODs and subject advisors were providing <strong>the</strong>ir teachers with goodc<strong>on</strong>structive advice.208
Areas for improvementTeaching plans were not reflected in <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files. In <strong>on</strong>e case (SenakangwediSec<strong>on</strong>dary) <strong>the</strong> teacher was using <strong>the</strong> CAPS teaching plan (for 2014) which does notcorresp<strong>on</strong>d entirely with <strong>the</strong> NCS assessment plan. In additi<strong>on</strong>, in some cases <strong>the</strong> first taskdid not corresp<strong>on</strong>d with <strong>the</strong> teaching plan c<strong>on</strong>tent. The assessment plan was very sketchyin most cases with no c<strong>on</strong>tent specificati<strong>on</strong>.Wide discrepancies in <strong>the</strong> marks <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> various assessment tasks were noticed in most <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> schools sampled. This might be due to copying or collaborati<strong>on</strong>. In some cases <strong>the</strong>answers were very similar to <strong>the</strong> marking guideline.In general <strong>the</strong> SBA marks were significantly higher than <strong>the</strong> internal examinati<strong>on</strong> marks.The March examinati<strong>on</strong> reflected c<strong>on</strong>tent that had not yet been fully taught, namely, <strong>the</strong>cash flow statement.A few errors in <strong>the</strong> centrally set March test and <strong>the</strong> June examinati<strong>on</strong> were not picked upby most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> teachers in <strong>the</strong> sampled schools prior to c<strong>on</strong>ducting <strong>the</strong> assessment tasks.Marks that changed as a result <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> were not changed in <strong>the</strong> teachers’ marksheets. There was also no evidence <strong>of</strong> any re-marking d<strong>on</strong>e by <strong>the</strong> teacher.The quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mark sheets left much to be desired, with no totals or averages beingreflected. In many cases mark sheets were incomplete, and <strong>the</strong>re were errors in <strong>the</strong>capturing <strong>of</strong> marks.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s should be made available to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> externalmoderators. Subject advisors should place greater emphasis <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> teaching plan in order to seethat it dovetails with <strong>the</strong> assessment plan. The inflated marks for class-based or homework-based case studies and projectsshould be brought under c<strong>on</strong>trol. Declarati<strong>on</strong>s by learners were not always properly processed, and signatures <strong>of</strong>learners and teachers were missing in three schools. Provincial and district examiners should look at <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> March test toensure that it covered <strong>the</strong> relevant work. Centrally set tasks should be properly moderated before being distributed. Subject advisors should require teachers to complete <strong>the</strong> centrally set tasks<strong>the</strong>mselves before marking <strong>the</strong> scripts, as this would enable <strong>the</strong>m to engage moremeaningfully with <strong>the</strong> subject c<strong>on</strong>tent. This practice would also have a beneficialeffect <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> learning and teaching.209
Teachers should be encouraged to re-engage with scripts after moderati<strong>on</strong> ifdifferences in marking are detected. The final mark sheets should be available for <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>. Learners’ subject knowledge was obviously low as <strong>the</strong>y could <strong>of</strong>ten not score marks<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> relatively easy parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> curriculum. Subject advisors should ensure thatteachers are aware <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> “Mind <strong>the</strong> gap” guide published free <strong>of</strong> charge by <strong>the</strong>DBE which would be <strong>of</strong> great help.ENGLISH FALPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleTwo districts were selected, and five schools from each district submitted evidence files.Each school was expected to submit 20 learners’ files and approximately 125 learners’ fileswere submitted in total. Although <strong>the</strong> DBE had been engaged in moderati<strong>on</strong> for a period<strong>of</strong> five days, <strong>the</strong>re was no <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> available. Two administrati<strong>on</strong> assistants and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong>moderator went through all <strong>the</strong> files to identify those that had been moderated, andextracted <strong>the</strong>m for external moderati<strong>on</strong>. There were 19 such files, as well as <strong>the</strong> teacher’sfile from each school.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsDBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instruments were not made available to <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderators.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesIt was difficult to assess <strong>the</strong> DBE’s moderati<strong>on</strong> according to <strong>the</strong>ir instrument without havingaccess to it. It appeared that <strong>the</strong>ir moderati<strong>on</strong> was limited to shadow-marking orchecking marks.Many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> inputs or comments made by <strong>the</strong> DBE merely reflected those <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> FreeState district <strong>of</strong>ficial who had moderated <strong>the</strong> files earlier.As no <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>of</strong> any kind was made available by <strong>the</strong> DBE, it could not be stated what <strong>the</strong>recommendati<strong>on</strong>s were, if any. It could <strong>on</strong>ly be verified that <strong>the</strong> DBE had re-marked tasksfor <strong>the</strong> third term.210
Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksThe files <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Free State educators all c<strong>on</strong>tained memoranda <strong>of</strong> tasks to be completedby <strong>the</strong> learners. These memos were generally accurate.Although literature orals had been set, most school assessed <strong>the</strong>se tasks using a writingrubric. It subsequently had to be made clear to <strong>the</strong> schools that oral resp<strong>on</strong>se to literaturewas an oral task and not a written task, and that <strong>the</strong> oral rubric relating to speaking shouldhave been used.Obviously, if <strong>the</strong> incorrect rubrics were being used by some educators, incorrectevaluati<strong>on</strong> would c<strong>on</strong>sistently be taking place. There was evidence in learners’ files(Nomsa School) that rubrics for writing tasks were not being used correctly. In this case <strong>the</strong>writing rubric C<strong>on</strong>tent and Planning mark had been split into two secti<strong>on</strong>s, for example, 8 =Planning; 18 = C<strong>on</strong>tent. This was unacceptable as <strong>the</strong> two criteria should have beenassessed toge<strong>the</strong>r and <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong>e mark awarded.In most cases <strong>the</strong> allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks and <strong>the</strong> transference <strong>of</strong> marks were d<strong>on</strong>eaccurately. However, <strong>the</strong>re were some discrepancies. At Phetogane Sec<strong>on</strong>dary School<strong>on</strong>e task was marked out <strong>of</strong> 35, but <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> mark sheet it was indicated that <strong>the</strong> task wasout <strong>of</strong> 30. At Senakangwedi, marks for Tasks 12 and 13 had not been entered <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> marksheet. It was also found that in Task 13 correct answers were marked wr<strong>on</strong>g. At PopanoSchool, <strong>on</strong>e learner had <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong>e oral mark and nothing else. In additi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>the</strong> marks <strong>of</strong> twolearners had not been adjusted when <strong>the</strong>y were entered <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> mark sheet. At Lerat<strong>on</strong>gSec<strong>on</strong>dary School <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence in a learner’s file <strong>of</strong> Tasks 11 to 13, although <strong>the</strong>marks appeared <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> mark sheet.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceGenerally, <strong>the</strong> learners had performed well and had completed <strong>the</strong>ir tasks for <strong>the</strong> thirdterm to <strong>the</strong> best <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir ability.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsThe entire moderati<strong>on</strong> process at school level is in need <strong>of</strong> an overhaul. There was verylittle evidence <strong>of</strong> school moderati<strong>on</strong>, but <strong>the</strong>re was sufficient and very competentmoderati<strong>on</strong> being d<strong>on</strong>e at district level. Ms Webber was doing a sterling job with regard todistrict moderati<strong>on</strong>.There was very little moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> learners’ work. It is imperative that <strong>the</strong>y be guidedto improve <strong>the</strong>ir work. Not <strong>on</strong>ly had moderati<strong>on</strong> not been d<strong>on</strong>e, but some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> markingwas very superficial with errors not being identified. Learners need guidance and <strong>the</strong>y can211
<strong>on</strong>ly learn from <strong>the</strong>ir mistakes if <strong>the</strong> mistakes are pointed out to <strong>the</strong>m. This involves bothmarking and moderati<strong>on</strong>.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice Having moderated <strong>the</strong> various learner and teacher files <strong>of</strong> both districts, it waspleasing to <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> that <strong>the</strong> learners seemed to be achieving w<strong>on</strong>derfully in <strong>the</strong> thirdtermtasks. Generally, <strong>the</strong> marking <strong>of</strong> tasks was accurate. The allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks and <strong>the</strong>irtransference was accurate in all but <strong>on</strong>e case (Phetogane Sec<strong>on</strong>dary School). Comm<strong>on</strong> tasks had been written, and <strong>the</strong>y were all <strong>of</strong> an acceptable standard.Areas for improvement Accurate moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learners’ work is needed at school level. The allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks for writing tasks was good, but errors were not identified. Incorrect rubrics were being used for <strong>the</strong> marking <strong>of</strong> oral tasks. SAG documents with full instructi<strong>on</strong>s were not used, or had not been made availableto educators. N<strong>on</strong>e were found in <strong>the</strong> files. The DBE assessment tools were not available. It is noted that <strong>the</strong>y are needed by <strong>the</strong><strong>Umalusi</strong> moderators if <strong>the</strong>y are to verify DBE moderati<strong>on</strong>. There was very little indicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> actual work <strong>of</strong> candidates in <strong>the</strong>schools.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Teachers have to make a point <strong>of</strong> indicating errors in essays so that learners canlearn from <strong>the</strong>ir mistakes. Educators have to have access to <strong>the</strong> relevant policy documents. If oral literature has to be d<strong>on</strong>e so late in <strong>the</strong> year, it would be better to focus <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>current setworks for reinforcement, ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>on</strong> films or televisi<strong>on</strong> shows. Literature orals are not written exercises. Although this was pointed out by <strong>the</strong> FreeState district moderator, it appears to have been ignored. DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> should have taken place earlier in <strong>the</strong> year instead <strong>of</strong> just prior to<strong>the</strong> final examinati<strong>on</strong>s when learners and teachers needed <strong>the</strong>ir files. Tasks must be moderated before being administered to learners. Tasks c<strong>on</strong>tainedtyping errors and, in some cases, no instructi<strong>on</strong>s (Lerat<strong>on</strong>g Sec<strong>on</strong>dary School, Task13). In additi<strong>on</strong>, some answers were missing from memos and, at MetsimatleSec<strong>on</strong>dary School, <strong>the</strong>re were errors in <strong>the</strong> instructi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir oral Task 11. It is recommended that <strong>the</strong> DBE moderators submit a <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> before leaving a centreso that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderators will have an idea <strong>of</strong> how many files have beenmoderated, which <strong>on</strong>es <strong>the</strong>y are, and what assessment tools were used, etc., as itwas difficult to moderate <strong>the</strong>ir moderati<strong>on</strong>.212
LIFE ORIENTATIONPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleFiles from 10 schools in two districts were submitted for external moderati<strong>on</strong>.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe instruments were appropriate and addressed critical aspects <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>. It wouldbe a great help if a copy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were left for <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderators.PART 2:VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ files The moderati<strong>on</strong> was d<strong>on</strong>e thoroughly and <strong>the</strong> comments in <strong>the</strong> tasks weredevelopmental and indicated what errors had been made. The province had d<strong>on</strong>e comm<strong>on</strong> tasks, and it was not necessary to moderatemultiple copies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> same task. It would appear that no internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at any level had taken place as <strong>the</strong>rewere no <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s. Detailed feedback had been provided by <strong>the</strong> DBE moderators. Tasks had been approved, but <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>; instructi<strong>on</strong>s tolearners were ambiguous; <strong>the</strong> tasks did not address c<strong>on</strong>tent at appropriate level; <strong>the</strong>research task was clearly not understood by learners; no clear instructi<strong>on</strong>s were givenand <strong>the</strong> format <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper was not in line with <strong>the</strong> SAG. In additi<strong>on</strong>, writingin paragraphs in Secti<strong>on</strong> C was a challenge for learners.Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksThe memoranda were not always pitched at <strong>the</strong> correct level and <strong>the</strong> rubrics were toogeneric.The marking tool was not applied c<strong>on</strong>sistently. The PET assessment usually indicated 100%for attendance, implying that no learner had ever been absent. Moreover, <strong>the</strong> PET marksneed to be revisited.213
Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceThe marks appeared to be unreliable; in <strong>the</strong> first term most learners achieved at levels 6and 7.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsNo <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were available and <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence <strong>of</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> tasks.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practiceThe files were well arranged, and <strong>the</strong> SBA policies were available.Areas for improvement At <strong>on</strong>e school all learners got almost 100% for PET. There was no rubric to indicatehow <strong>the</strong> marks were awarded. At <strong>on</strong>e school <strong>the</strong> June examinati<strong>on</strong> was written in March. At ano<strong>the</strong>r school it was clear that <strong>the</strong> learners had not understood <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent. All schools performed poorly in <strong>the</strong> DBE CAT.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Teachers should be trained in <strong>the</strong> applicati<strong>on</strong> and development <strong>of</strong> rubrics. Moderati<strong>on</strong> should be undertaken at least twice a year by clusters and districts. If schools set <strong>the</strong>ir own examinati<strong>on</strong> it should be moderated at least at district level.All tasks should be quality assured. The setting <strong>of</strong> good comm<strong>on</strong> tasks is recommended. This should be d<strong>on</strong>e by panels.LIFE SCIENCESPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleFiles from two districts (Mo<strong>the</strong>o and Fezile Dabi) were presented for moderati<strong>on</strong>: five lowperformingschools from each district, and a teacher’s file from each school. All <strong>the</strong>learner and teacher portfolios that had been selected for moderati<strong>on</strong> by <strong>the</strong> DBE weremoderated by <strong>Umalusi</strong>. The DBE indicated by means <strong>of</strong> post-it notes which tasks had beenmoderated, and some c<strong>on</strong>tained comments <strong>on</strong> what <strong>the</strong>y had found. The <strong>Umalusi</strong>moderator moderated <strong>the</strong> same 11 teacher portfolios and 30 learner portfolios that weremoderated by <strong>the</strong> DBE.214
<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsNo evidence <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> was found, although <strong>on</strong>e moderated file was produced at<strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sessi<strong>on</strong>. The <strong>on</strong>ly evidence <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> that was found was in <strong>the</strong> threetasks that were re-marked. In some cases <strong>the</strong> DBE moderators marked answers wr<strong>on</strong>g thathad been correctly marked right by <strong>the</strong> markers. These errors were in <strong>the</strong> memorandum,and were not picked up by <strong>the</strong> DBE moderators.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ files It appeared that <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> was verificati<strong>on</strong>. All <strong>the</strong> tasksscrutinised had been signed and dated, but <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence <strong>of</strong> commentsabout <strong>the</strong> validity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasks or <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir memoranda being subjected to moderati<strong>on</strong>by <strong>the</strong> DBE. Where mark sheets appeared in <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files <strong>the</strong>y had <strong>on</strong>ly been completedup to June. Where <strong>the</strong> DBE had changed <strong>the</strong> marks, <strong>the</strong> changes were notrecorded. There were no DBE recommendati<strong>on</strong>s to be commented up<strong>on</strong>.Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksThe memorandum had been slavishly followed, even when it was incorrect. The externalmoderator was unable to comment <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> fairness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mark allocati<strong>on</strong> because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>errors in <strong>the</strong> tasks and <strong>the</strong>ir memoranda.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceGiven that <strong>the</strong> learners were selected from underperforming schools, <strong>the</strong> low levels <strong>of</strong>learner performance had been anticipated and were c<strong>on</strong>sequently c<strong>on</strong>firmed.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levels Some teacher portfolios c<strong>on</strong>tained moderators’ <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s, but it was not possible todistinguish between <strong>the</strong> levels <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>. There was no evidence <strong>of</strong> DBEmoderati<strong>on</strong> except for <strong>the</strong> post-it notes that identified various tasks. There was, however, evidence <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learners’ portfolios, which involvedcounter-marking. Never<strong>the</strong>less, some incorrect marking had not been detected.C<strong>on</strong>sequently, moderati<strong>on</strong> seemed to serve a m<strong>on</strong>itoring functi<strong>on</strong>, ra<strong>the</strong>r thanmoderati<strong>on</strong>. There was no evidence <strong>of</strong> formative feedback from teachers to learners, or frommoderators to teachers.215
Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice The strengths and weaknesses were discussed <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> last day <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> process. The intenti<strong>on</strong> behind comm<strong>on</strong> tasks could be c<strong>on</strong>sidered a strength; but for all sorts<strong>of</strong> reas<strong>on</strong>s, such as validity issues, timing and <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essi<strong>on</strong>al development <strong>of</strong>educators, educators should be encouraged to use such tasks creatively andcritically.Areas for improvement Educators should be encouraged to use comm<strong>on</strong> tasks critically so that <strong>the</strong>y canimprove <strong>the</strong> tasks and <strong>the</strong> accompanying memoranda wherever possible. The prescripti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a “hands-<strong>on</strong>” practical is an unfortunate name as a researchinquiry might or might not be “hands-<strong>on</strong>”. This should ra<strong>the</strong>r be called an “au<strong>the</strong>ntic”practical so that <strong>the</strong> candidates do <strong>the</strong> tasks <strong>the</strong>mselves. In reality <strong>the</strong> practical wasbeing treated as a <strong>the</strong>ory test. Some teachers c<strong>on</strong>fused “hands-<strong>on</strong>” with “hypo<strong>the</strong>sis testing” in <strong>the</strong>ir files. The SAG gives little guidance <strong>on</strong> what a project/assignment task is. Learners should be encouraged to do correcti<strong>on</strong>s so that <strong>the</strong>y can learn from <strong>the</strong>irmistakes. The poor performance <strong>of</strong> learners is a cause for c<strong>on</strong>cern.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Every task should be moderated before it is administered to learners. Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> is more than simply endorsing <strong>the</strong> educators’ decisi<strong>on</strong>s. There should be improved coordinati<strong>on</strong> between DBE and <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>processes. Teachers need to be guided regarding <strong>the</strong> marking <strong>of</strong> graphs and essays.PHYSICAL SCIENCESPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleFive schools each were selected from <strong>the</strong> two pre-selected districts, Mo<strong>the</strong>o and FezileDabi. The size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sample moderated by <strong>the</strong> DBE comprised 1,04% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> NSC PhysicalScience candidates in 2012. The moderati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> cannot be <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed up<strong>on</strong> andadherence can <strong>on</strong>ly be judged <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE instrument, which was madeavailable, and <strong>the</strong> comments in <strong>the</strong> files that <strong>the</strong>y had looked at. Comments were thinand mostly chastising, and reprimanded learners for <strong>the</strong>ir poor performance. There were216
no comments <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> SBA tasks and <strong>the</strong>ir answers in general because<strong>the</strong>re was no evidence that <strong>the</strong>y had been moderated by <strong>the</strong> DBE. There was <strong>the</strong>reforelittle evidence <strong>of</strong> adherence to <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> requirements in <strong>the</strong> tasks sampled by<strong>Umalusi</strong>.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe moderati<strong>on</strong> tool was appropriate and it evaluated <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> marking. Theresearch project makes up 20% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total SBA mark in <strong>the</strong> NSC. However, <strong>the</strong> tool wasfound to be inappropriate in <strong>the</strong> sense that it did not make provisi<strong>on</strong> for <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>physical investigati<strong>on</strong>s (physics) and research projects.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesThe DBE tool was used exclusively to re-mark learners’ answers in <strong>the</strong> Septemberexaminati<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d c<strong>on</strong>trol test. C<strong>on</strong>sequently, <strong>the</strong> DBE moderators werejudging <strong>the</strong> accuracy <strong>of</strong> marking. Their work was, however, c<strong>on</strong>sistent with <strong>the</strong> instrumentat <strong>the</strong>ir disposal. Very few comments were found in <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> tasks moderated by<strong>Umalusi</strong>; <strong>the</strong> few remarks that were found were negative, and it appeared that <strong>the</strong> DBEmoderator was inexperienced in marking <strong>the</strong> NSC. The ticks and crosses to showagreement or difference might be useful if <strong>the</strong>y were acted <strong>on</strong>. No recommendati<strong>on</strong>shad been made.Marking <strong>of</strong> tasksThe greatest weakness in <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> exercise was that <strong>the</strong> moderators made use<strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers and memoranda c<strong>on</strong>taining errors. Half a page <strong>of</strong> errors was notedand ano<strong>the</strong>r half a page <strong>of</strong> errors was picked up in <strong>the</strong> re-marking d<strong>on</strong>e by <strong>the</strong> DBEmoderators. Marking cannot be fair if <strong>the</strong> memorandum is full <strong>of</strong> errors. In additi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> schools had not been moderated at all by <strong>the</strong> DBE.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceThe performance was better than expected, and <strong>on</strong>e w<strong>on</strong>ders whe<strong>the</strong>r poor-performingschools had indeed been selected. Performance in <strong>the</strong> September examinati<strong>on</strong> was lowin comparis<strong>on</strong> with <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trol task and <strong>the</strong> research project, however. The cognitivelevels <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> (September) were comparable to <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> final NSCexaminati<strong>on</strong>. There was, however, less cognitive demand in <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trol test and <strong>the</strong>research project.217
Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsCompleted checklists were found in <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files. This indicated that SBA at schooland cluster level had been strictly m<strong>on</strong>itored. Moderati<strong>on</strong> and feedback to learners wereminimal.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice SBA was being m<strong>on</strong>itored and implemented. The teachers’ files were easy to navigate. The September examinati<strong>on</strong>s were <strong>of</strong> a good standard and were internallymoderated.Areas for improvement Average marks and percentages should be shown <strong>on</strong> mark sheets. Evidence <strong>of</strong> training and agendas should appear in <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files. Only research projects that can achieve an appropriate spread <strong>of</strong> marks should beselected for SBA. Each assessment task should be accompanied by a completed tax<strong>on</strong>omy grid. Teacher marking should be improved in <strong>the</strong> interests <strong>of</strong> giving learners a fair deal. Feedback to learners should improve.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>sModerati<strong>on</strong> should be viewed as a process that can achieve <strong>the</strong> mark that each learnerdeserves to get in each assessment task.GAUTENGACCOUNTINGPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleFive schools per district supplied 20 learners’ portfolios as required, toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong>teacher’s file. In schools where <strong>the</strong>re were fewer than 20 candidates, all portfolios weresupplied. This was verified by <strong>the</strong> mark sheets provided in <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files.All schools had adhered to <strong>the</strong> requirements. One school (Samels<strong>on</strong> College in Sedibeng)did not submit portfolios for Accounting as <strong>the</strong>y do not <strong>of</strong>fer <strong>the</strong> subject at <strong>the</strong> school.218
<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instruments The moderati<strong>on</strong> tool was appropriate. It would be a good idea if <strong>the</strong> completed moderati<strong>on</strong> tool were also submitted to<strong>Umalusi</strong> in order to enable <strong>Umalusi</strong> verifiers to know how <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s wereinterpreted.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ files C<strong>on</strong>sistency could not be verified because <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> verifiers were not providedwith <strong>the</strong> completed tool. No comments or recommendati<strong>on</strong>s by <strong>the</strong> DBE SBA team were found in <strong>the</strong>moderated sample.Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasks The marking tools used in two districts appeared to be acceptable, except for arubric that was used in almost all assessment tasks. Marks were allocated for vaguecriteria that were difficult to verify, such as neatness, completeness and timelysubmissi<strong>on</strong>. Regarding c<strong>on</strong>sistency, <strong>the</strong> verifier found it difficult to arrive at <strong>the</strong> same score as <strong>the</strong>first markers based <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> criteria menti<strong>on</strong>ed above. The marking was fair in some schools, but very poor in o<strong>the</strong>rs such as Thuto TiroSec<strong>on</strong>dary School where <strong>the</strong>re were discrepancies am<strong>on</strong>g <strong>the</strong> marks awarded by<strong>the</strong> marker, <strong>the</strong> moderators and <strong>the</strong> verifier. The allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks for vague criteriasuch as neatness is difficult because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir subjectivity.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceGenerally, <strong>the</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> learners was not good. They struggled with coresubject secti<strong>on</strong>s such as cash flow statement, balance sheet, <strong>the</strong>ory questi<strong>on</strong>s andinterpretati<strong>on</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levels Although <strong>the</strong>re was evidence <strong>of</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong> in teachers’ files, <strong>the</strong> qualitywas very poor as <strong>the</strong>re were no corrective or c<strong>on</strong>gratulatory comments. The focuswas <strong>on</strong> compliance. It was fur<strong>the</strong>r discovered that <strong>the</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong> toolswere copies. There was no sign <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> originals.219
Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice The DBE SBA circular was fully adhered to by all schools. The June and <strong>the</strong> preparatory examinati<strong>on</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers were comm<strong>on</strong> papers. Assessment tasks were properly labelled, which made identificati<strong>on</strong> easy. The learners’ and teachers’ files were well organised and accessible.Areas for improvement The marking <strong>of</strong> learners’ tasks was poor. At Thuto Tiro Sec<strong>on</strong>dary School, five markswere added to each learner’s total score without any justificati<strong>on</strong>. Method markswere not properly awarded. No penalties were c<strong>on</strong>sidered for inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> foreignitems. No evidence <strong>of</strong> pre-moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> assessment tasks could be found. The internal moderati<strong>on</strong> tools were just ticked, without any corrective comments. Subjective rubrics were used to award marks for c<strong>on</strong>trolled tests and projects, withcriteria such as neatness, completeness and submissi<strong>on</strong>. For example, learners weregiven <strong>the</strong> following marks: 1 for untidy, 2 for acceptable, 3 for above average and 4for excellently neat. Learners did not perform well in higher-order questi<strong>on</strong>s such as <strong>the</strong> balance sheet,cash flow statement and corporate governance, particularly at Eersterus Sec<strong>on</strong>darySchool, Prince Field Trust School, and J Kekana High School. Learners had difficulty answering questi<strong>on</strong> papers for <strong>the</strong> June and <strong>the</strong> preparatoryexaminati<strong>on</strong>s, giving rise to <strong>the</strong> suspici<strong>on</strong> that <strong>the</strong> internal tasks were set at too low astandard and did not prepare <strong>the</strong> learners adequately for <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s. (SeeEersterus Sec<strong>on</strong>dary School.) Learners were not penalised for foreign items, nor were <strong>the</strong>y allocated method marksas applied in <strong>the</strong> memoranda <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> final examinati<strong>on</strong>s. (See J Kekana High Schooland Prince Field Trust School.) Work schedules to indicate when secti<strong>on</strong>s had been completed were not kept up todate in all schools. At most schools <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>versi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learners’ marks was incorrect and inc<strong>on</strong>sistent. One school (Phateng Sec<strong>on</strong>dary School) was found with a note, “exempted fromdistrict moderati<strong>on</strong>”, with <strong>on</strong>ly school moderati<strong>on</strong> tools being included in <strong>the</strong>teacher’s file. Copied moderati<strong>on</strong> tools were found filed in teachers’ files, but with no completedoriginals.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Marking has to be d<strong>on</strong>e accurately and marks should be justifiable so that a sec<strong>on</strong>dmarker/moderator would arrive at a similar score. Evidence <strong>of</strong> pre-moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> tasks should be available in <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files.220
Moderati<strong>on</strong> tools should add value to <strong>the</strong> assessment tasks by indicatingweaknesses, as well as making recommendati<strong>on</strong>s to improve <strong>the</strong> identifiedweaknesses. Remedial work should be d<strong>on</strong>e in areas where learners were struggling to deal withsecti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject. Workshops should be organised to ensure that teachers <strong>the</strong>mselves are able to copewith <strong>the</strong> higher-order aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject. Candidates should be penalised for wr<strong>on</strong>g and foreign items in <strong>the</strong>ir answers, andmethod marks would be awarded where appropriate as applied in <strong>the</strong> marking <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> final examinati<strong>on</strong>s. Work schedules should be kept up to date. There should be c<strong>on</strong>sistency in <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>versi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks across <strong>the</strong> province. Where a school is exempted from moderati<strong>on</strong> at any level, sufficient reas<strong>on</strong>s shouldbe provided in <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files. The original signed moderati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s should be available in <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files.LIFE ORIENTATIONPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleTen schools from two districts submitted files. More than 50% had been moderated, but notalways <strong>the</strong> entire script.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe DBE tool was clear and c<strong>on</strong>cise. However, no completed <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s had been left for <strong>the</strong><strong>Umalusi</strong> moderators.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ files<strong>Umalusi</strong> moderators awarded far lower marks than <strong>the</strong> DBE moderators. For example, <strong>the</strong>DBE gave full marks for a questi<strong>on</strong> where an explanati<strong>on</strong> was required even if <strong>the</strong> learnerhad not given any explanati<strong>on</strong>. Moreover, <strong>the</strong>y did not follow all <strong>the</strong> marking rules. Therewas no visible re-marking in Secti<strong>on</strong> C and <strong>the</strong> DBE had endorsed school marks that wereobviously wr<strong>on</strong>g.221
Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasks Most schools transferred <strong>the</strong> learners’ marks accurately. The quality <strong>of</strong> marking at schools was poor. Markers did not distinguish betweenstr<strong>on</strong>ger and weaker candidates.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceLearner performance ranged from average to poor in <strong>the</strong> moderated schools. Thelearners revealed an inability to interpret acti<strong>on</strong> words in questi<strong>on</strong>s.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsModerati<strong>on</strong> at district level was effective, although not error-free. There was a downwardtrend in marks, but <strong>on</strong>ly a very small percentage had been moderated.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice There was evidence <strong>of</strong> re-marking/moderati<strong>on</strong> at various levels. The recording <strong>of</strong> marks was accurate.Areas for improvement Teachers do not mark according to <strong>the</strong> appropriate guidelines. Differences exceeding 10 marks were observed after verificati<strong>on</strong>. Teachers and learners struggled to interpret <strong>the</strong> requirements <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s District and cluster marking guideline meetings should be held. Centralised marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CAT would help to standardise marking. Teachers and learners should be supported regarding <strong>the</strong> interpretati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> cognitivelevel acti<strong>on</strong> words. Moderati<strong>on</strong> at school level must be streng<strong>the</strong>ned.LIFE SCIENCESPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleThe <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderator verified <strong>the</strong> sample decided up<strong>on</strong> by <strong>the</strong> DBE, that is, five schoolseach from two districts, Tshwane South (D4) and Sedibeng West (D8). A total <strong>of</strong> 47 fileswere moderated by <strong>the</strong> DBE in terms <strong>of</strong> a memo dated 03.09.2012.222
<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe DBE instrument was fairly comprehensive. There was no menti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> feedback,however. It must be said that while <strong>the</strong> instrument required <strong>the</strong> DBE moderator to re-marklearner evidence, <strong>the</strong>re was little or no evidence <strong>of</strong> detailed re-marking by <strong>the</strong> DBEmoderator.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesC<strong>on</strong>sistency could not be determined because no DBE <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> was left behind. There wasno detailed re-marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> earmarked tasks. In <strong>the</strong> few instances where such practicedid occur, it focused <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent requirement and <strong>the</strong> applicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking tool.There was no evidence <strong>of</strong> comments <strong>on</strong> ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> moderated scripts or <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasks andmarking guidelines. Several <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> rubrics were badly designed. The mid-year examinati<strong>on</strong>c<strong>on</strong>tained a great deal <strong>of</strong> inappropriate c<strong>on</strong>tent in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper and manyinaccuracies in <strong>the</strong> memo.Marking <strong>of</strong> tasksThere were several inaccuracies in <strong>the</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> mid-year examinati<strong>on</strong>. Some aspects <strong>of</strong>rubrics were not well designed and allowed for subjectivity. For example, for <strong>the</strong>assessment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> recording <strong>of</strong> results, a two-point scale was used (tables not up tostandard/tables up to standard), with no indicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> what was meant by “up tostandard”. Full marks were given for answers that were not complete. Moreover, <strong>the</strong>re waslittle c<strong>on</strong>sistency because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> vague nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> descriptors. Owing to <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong>properly designed rubrics, marking could not be fair.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceMarks were generally high for <strong>the</strong> practical task and for <strong>the</strong> assignment. The performancein <strong>the</strong> mid-year exam <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand was generally poor.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsIn learner files <strong>the</strong>re was evidence <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> at least two different levels. Therewas no form <strong>of</strong> feedback to learners, however. At <strong>on</strong>e school candidates’ marks couldnot be verified because <strong>the</strong>ir names did not appear <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> mark sheet.223
Areas <strong>of</strong> good practiceThe use <strong>of</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> tasks is a good practice because it provides a measure <strong>of</strong>standardisati<strong>on</strong>.The use <strong>of</strong> different coloured pens provides a way <strong>of</strong> judging <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> at<strong>the</strong> different levels.Areas <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cern The tasks and tests appeared not to be thoroughly moderated. Many errors were identified in <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> test. This resulted in areducti<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> inter-rater reliability.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s The importance <strong>of</strong> pre-moderating tasks cannot be overemphasised. Prior to <strong>the</strong> marking <strong>of</strong> a comm<strong>on</strong> test/examinati<strong>on</strong>, memo discussi<strong>on</strong>s should beheld to standardise marking. Feedback is an integral part <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> and should not be neglected. Proper feedback should also be given to teachers, who should be praised for goodwork, and informed about <strong>the</strong>ir shortcomings.KWAZULU-NATALGEOGRAPHYPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleA sample <strong>of</strong> learners’ files from 10 schools was supplied.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsNo moderati<strong>on</strong> instruments were available.224
PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ files An example <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> was found in each school sample. However, nomarks had been amended, and it was difficult to judge <strong>the</strong> quality and standard <strong>of</strong>DBE moderati<strong>on</strong>. No comments or recommendati<strong>on</strong>s were evident.Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksThe memos and rubrics were mostly neatly typed and accurate, and <strong>the</strong>y were usedappropriately.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceMany learners achieved very high marks for <strong>the</strong> research, assignment and practical task,and <strong>the</strong>n below average marks in <strong>the</strong> June examinati<strong>on</strong>.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsThis was identified as a strength. Moderati<strong>on</strong> was systematic and undertaken at all levels.The useful, thorough tool was a valuable means <strong>of</strong> communicating with educators.AREAS OF GOOD PRACTICE Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> took place at all levels. Feedback was given to educators. There were some innovative ideas for research and surveys.AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT Educators need to take heed <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> feedback provided by moderators. Attenti<strong>on</strong> to detail is required. Amendments should be made to <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> process, as <strong>the</strong>re could bec<strong>on</strong>cepts that are challenging for a marker. Inflated marks were awarded for practical tasks.RECOMMENDATIONS The DBE could have left a covering letter or a c<strong>on</strong>trol page so that moderated taskscould be easily accessed. The moderati<strong>on</strong> instrument should be made available.225
Practical tasks should adhere to <strong>the</strong> SAG and deal with challenges such as <strong>the</strong>applicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory. If <strong>the</strong> SAG were followed, marks would not be inflated.HISTORYPART 1:FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleTwo districts were invited for moderati<strong>on</strong>, with five schools chosen from each. Therequirement was that portfolios should be submitted from 10 schools, but <strong>on</strong>ly five did so.One teacher’s file and three learners’ files from each school were moderated. The DBEhad worked with all <strong>the</strong> schools that submitted <strong>the</strong>ir documents and had moderated <strong>the</strong>teacher’s file and five learners’ files from each school.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe instrument was planned so as to evaluate compliance with <strong>the</strong> SAG and to evaluate<strong>the</strong> status <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> current moderati<strong>on</strong> systems in <strong>the</strong> PED. The instrument served thatpurpose, although no completed instrument was available during <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>sessi<strong>on</strong>.PART 2:VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE actual moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learners’ evidenceChecklists developed by <strong>the</strong> DBE had been comm<strong>on</strong>ly used to moderate learners’ filesand <strong>the</strong> DBE had provided comments in <strong>the</strong>se files. There was no <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> which to basean evaluati<strong>on</strong>, however. Although <strong>the</strong>re were no <strong>of</strong>ficial recommendati<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>the</strong>comments and recommendati<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> learners’ files were informative.Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksNo discrepancies were found in <strong>the</strong> marking with rubrics. The marking guidelines wereappropriate and in line with NCS policy and guidelines. A comm<strong>on</strong> rubric was used inKwaZulu-Natal (KZN) to assess <strong>the</strong> heritage assignments. There were significantinc<strong>on</strong>sistencies in <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> marking and marking differed from school to school. Themarking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> extended writing tasks were found to be challenging and inc<strong>on</strong>sistent.226
However, <strong>the</strong> educators were mostly able to indicate how marks were to be awarded,and this was found to be fair.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceLearners’ performance ranged from fair to good. Where learners had <strong>the</strong> writing skills, <strong>the</strong>yexcelled because <strong>the</strong>y were able to interpret, analyse, evaluate and syn<strong>the</strong>sise evidencefrom sources. By c<strong>on</strong>trast, where learners had to express <strong>the</strong>mselves in <strong>the</strong>ir sec<strong>on</strong>d/thirdlanguage <strong>the</strong>y experienced a major challenge and this influenced <strong>the</strong>ir performance. Thetrial examinati<strong>on</strong> and heritage assignments were not presented for moderati<strong>on</strong>.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsWhile some moderati<strong>on</strong> was in place for compliance, <strong>the</strong>re was a lack <strong>of</strong> rigorousmoderati<strong>on</strong> at school level. Moderati<strong>on</strong> by subject advisors was operati<strong>on</strong>al to a certainextent, while cluster moderati<strong>on</strong> was mainly in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> shadow-marking. There werevery few qualitative inputs or comments.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice The portfolio system had been managed appropriately and this made <strong>the</strong> filesaccessible. The files were fairly complete and presented a picture <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> status <strong>of</strong> SBA in History in<strong>the</strong> province. SBA was d<strong>on</strong>e <strong>on</strong> a c<strong>on</strong>tinuous basis and was integrated with teaching. A provincial moderati<strong>on</strong> process was in place to a certain extent at various levels. The provincially set tasks were <strong>of</strong> a good standard.Areas for improvement In some schools <strong>the</strong> heritage assignments had not been fully marked. The extensive use <strong>of</strong> previous questi<strong>on</strong> papers is a c<strong>on</strong>cern. Rigour in moderati<strong>on</strong> at school and district was lacking.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Cluster and district moderati<strong>on</strong> should be more frequent and rigorous, andundertaken by <strong>the</strong> subject advisors. The cluster leader should assist any particular school where <strong>the</strong> HOD is not a subjectspecialist. Teachers must be guided in <strong>the</strong> various forms <strong>of</strong> assessment, and <strong>the</strong> proper use <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> marking rubric. Teachers must also be trained in <strong>the</strong> applicati<strong>on</strong> and development <strong>of</strong> rubrics throughpractical exercises, for example <strong>the</strong> heritage assignment.227
Teachers should be encouraged to set <strong>the</strong>ir own assessment instruments and to usepreviously set examinati<strong>on</strong> papers <strong>on</strong>ly as a standardisati<strong>on</strong> tool.LIFE ORIENTATIONPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleFiles for 10 schools from two districts were submitted for moderati<strong>on</strong>.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instruments The quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> blank instrument was appropriate.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesThe moderati<strong>on</strong> tool was good, but no completed instruments were available.Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksMarking was poor because teachers did not adhere to <strong>the</strong> marking guidelines. At <strong>on</strong>eschool a teacher wrote an incorrect answer in red and gave a mark. Learners haddifficulty with <strong>the</strong> language and could not express <strong>the</strong>mselves. Correct answers weremarked wr<strong>on</strong>g and vice versa. At <strong>on</strong>e school <strong>the</strong>re was evidence <strong>of</strong> an irregularity whereit would appear that learners had worked toge<strong>the</strong>r. After moderati<strong>on</strong> differences <strong>of</strong> up to10 marks were found. However, in most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> schools <strong>the</strong> marks were transferredaccurately.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performancePerformance ranged from average to poor. Learners were unable to interpret acti<strong>on</strong>words in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsModerati<strong>on</strong> at district and provincial level was good and effective.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice There was evidence <strong>of</strong> re-marking at all levels. Moderati<strong>on</strong> at district and provincial level had had a positive impact.228
Areas for improvement Teachers did not mark according to <strong>the</strong> marking guidelines and <strong>the</strong>y were unable tointerpret acti<strong>on</strong> words. Differences exceeding 15 marks were noted. Learners’ resp<strong>on</strong>ses reflected gaps in <strong>the</strong>ir knowledge. There appeared to be some irregularity with <strong>the</strong> filling in <strong>of</strong> additi<strong>on</strong>al resp<strong>on</strong>ses at<strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> scripts.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s District and cluster marking guideline discussi<strong>on</strong>s should be held. Centralised marking <strong>of</strong> CAT should be d<strong>on</strong>e to standardise marking. Teachers and learners must be empowered to understand acti<strong>on</strong> words in questi<strong>on</strong>s. Moderati<strong>on</strong> at school level needs to be streng<strong>the</strong>ned.MATHEMATICSPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleTwo districts, Uthungulu/Empangeni and Umlasi, submitted files from schools, with portfoliosbeing received from <strong>on</strong>ly eight schools. The fact that all schools were underperformingschools complicated <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> process and some schools submitted fewer than sixfiles. The DBE had not moderated all <strong>the</strong> files. In additi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>the</strong>re had apparently been ago-slow strike, and very few schools had any third term assignments. Moreover, no trial orSeptember papers were submitted.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsNo moderati<strong>on</strong> tool was available. Although comments were made in <strong>the</strong> teachers’portfolios, no signs <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> could be found apart from <strong>the</strong> June tests. No <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>was available.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesThere were few signs <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>, with <strong>the</strong> <strong>on</strong>ly pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> being found in<strong>the</strong> June test. The moderati<strong>on</strong> that was found was d<strong>on</strong>e pr<strong>of</strong>essi<strong>on</strong>ally, but <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong>229
inputs <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE was not up to standard. The few recommendati<strong>on</strong>s thatwere made in <strong>the</strong> files were valid and reliable. The requirement (stipulated by <strong>the</strong> DBEmoderator) that <strong>the</strong> June paper had to look exactly like <strong>the</strong> end-<strong>of</strong>-year paper was notpractical as all <strong>the</strong> work had not yet been d<strong>on</strong>e.Marking <strong>of</strong> tasksThe marking tools were <strong>of</strong>ten untidy and handwritten. They were, however, usedappropriately. In most cases marks were allocated fairly, although detailed markallocati<strong>on</strong> was not found in any <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> memoranda.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceThe performance <strong>of</strong> many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> schools left much to be desired. In <strong>on</strong>e school every<strong>on</strong>ehad failed <strong>the</strong> June examinati<strong>on</strong>, with <strong>the</strong> highest percentage being 12%. Learnersperformed better in <strong>the</strong> assignments, however.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsThere was no pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> provincial papers, although some portfolios hadbeen moderated at provincial and DBE level. School moderati<strong>on</strong> varied from school toschool, mainly taking <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> checking for compliance.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice District moderators were efficient and thorough. School-based moderati<strong>on</strong> was d<strong>on</strong>e and checklists were completed. Comm<strong>on</strong> papers were written by all <strong>the</strong> schools. The composite mark sheet was completed accurately.Areas for improvement The str<strong>on</strong>g reliance <strong>on</strong> externally set papers revealed a reluctance <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> part <strong>of</strong>teachers to set <strong>the</strong>ir own papers and write memoranda. This calls <strong>the</strong> teachers’competence into questi<strong>on</strong>. A maths subject specialist needs to be involved in school and cluster moderati<strong>on</strong> tohelp novice Grade 12 teachers. The September assessment should have been included. The poor quality <strong>of</strong> some teachers’ files was alarming. There was a lack <strong>of</strong> good investigative tasks. Memos have to include alternative answers.230
Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Of <strong>the</strong> eight selected schools <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong>e had a decent pass rate. Accordingly, <strong>the</strong>poor-performing schools must be supported. Access to computers would help with <strong>the</strong> recording <strong>of</strong> marks. Workshops <strong>on</strong> maths in general need to be held across <strong>the</strong> province.PHYSICAL SCIENCESPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleFive schools were selected from each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> two pre-selected districts, Uthungulu andUmlasi. The size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sample moderated by <strong>the</strong> DBE could not be determined and <strong>the</strong>moderati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> cannot be <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed up<strong>on</strong>. Therefore, adherence can <strong>on</strong>ly be judgedby <strong>the</strong> DBE instrument, which was made available, and any comments in <strong>the</strong> files thatwere looked at. Comments and feedback by <strong>the</strong> DBE moderators could not have been arequirement as <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong>-moderated sample. Nocomments could be made <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> SBA tasks or <strong>the</strong> answers in generalbecause <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence that <strong>the</strong>y had been moderated by <strong>the</strong> DBE. There was<strong>the</strong>refore little evidence <strong>of</strong> adherence to <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> requirements in <strong>the</strong> taskssampled by <strong>Umalusi</strong>.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe moderati<strong>on</strong> tool was appropriate. However, although it evaluated <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong>marking it was not designed to judge <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> practical investigati<strong>on</strong>s or researchprojects. As <strong>the</strong> research project makes up 20% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total SBA mark in <strong>the</strong> NSC, <strong>the</strong> toolwas inappropriate in <strong>the</strong> sense that it did not make provisi<strong>on</strong> for <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>practical investigati<strong>on</strong>s (physics) and research projects. There is <strong>the</strong>refore doubt about <strong>the</strong>fairness, validity and reliability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrument.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesThe tool was used exclusively for <strong>the</strong> re-marking <strong>of</strong> learners’ answers in <strong>the</strong> Septemberexaminati<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d c<strong>on</strong>trol test. Accordingly, <strong>the</strong> DBE moderators were merelyjudging <strong>the</strong> accuracy <strong>of</strong> marking. Their work was, however, c<strong>on</strong>sistent with <strong>the</strong> instrumentat <strong>the</strong>ir disposal. Very few comments were made <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> tasks moderated by<strong>Umalusi</strong>, with <strong>the</strong> few remarks that were found being negative, and it appeared that <strong>the</strong>231
DBE moderator was inexperienced in marking NSC scripts. The ticks and crosses to showagreement or difference might be useful if <strong>the</strong>y were acted up<strong>on</strong>. No recommendati<strong>on</strong>swere made.Marking <strong>of</strong> tasksThe greatest weakness in <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> exercise was that <strong>the</strong> moderators made use<strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers and memoranda c<strong>on</strong>taining errors. Half a page <strong>of</strong> errors was noted,while ano<strong>the</strong>r half a page <strong>of</strong> errors was picked up in <strong>the</strong> re-marking by <strong>the</strong> DBEmoderators. Marking cannot be fair if <strong>the</strong> memorandum is full <strong>of</strong> errors. One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> schoolswas not moderated by <strong>the</strong> DBE at all.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceThe performance was better than expected, and <strong>on</strong>e w<strong>on</strong>ders whe<strong>the</strong>r poor-performingschools had indeed been selected. Performance in <strong>the</strong> September examinati<strong>on</strong> was lowin comparis<strong>on</strong> with <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trol task and <strong>the</strong> research project. The cognitive level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>examinati<strong>on</strong> (September) was comparable to <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> final NSC examinati<strong>on</strong>.However, <strong>the</strong>re was less cognitive demand in <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trol test and <strong>the</strong> research project.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsCompleted checklists were found in <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files. This indicated that SBA at schooland cluster level had been strictly m<strong>on</strong>itored. However, moderati<strong>on</strong> and feedback tolearners was minimal.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice SBA was being m<strong>on</strong>itored and implemented. The teachers’ files were easy to navigate. The September examinati<strong>on</strong>s were <strong>of</strong> a good standard and were internallymoderated.Areas for improvement Average marks and percentages should be shown <strong>on</strong> mark sheets. Evidence <strong>of</strong> training and agendas should be included in <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files. Only research projects that can achieve an appropriate spread <strong>of</strong> marks should beselected for SBA. Each assessment task should be accompanied by a completed tax<strong>on</strong>omy grid. Teachers’ marking should be improved in <strong>the</strong> interests <strong>of</strong> giving learners a fair deal. M<strong>on</strong>itoring <strong>of</strong> SBA at district and provincial levels needs to improve. Each task in <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files should be accompanied by a marking memorandum. Feedback to learners should improve.232
Recommendati<strong>on</strong>sModerati<strong>on</strong> should be viewed as a process to ensure that each learner is awarded <strong>the</strong>marks <strong>the</strong>y deserve to get in each assessment task.LIMPOPOACCOUNTINGPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleThe moderati<strong>on</strong> sample included 20 learners’ portfolios and <strong>the</strong> teacher’s file from fiveschools in each district, although some schools did not adhere to this requirement:Sephakabatho Sec<strong>on</strong>dary School sent in <strong>on</strong>ly six portfolios out <strong>of</strong> a possible 14; N<strong>the</strong>maSec<strong>on</strong>dary School submitted six out <strong>of</strong> a possible 25 portfolios; and Raselete Sec<strong>on</strong>darysubmitted seven learners’ portfolios out <strong>of</strong> 17 as per <strong>the</strong> mark sheet. All three <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>seschools were in Capricorn District. One school in Sekhukhune District did not submitportfolios as <strong>the</strong> particular subject is not <strong>of</strong>fered <strong>the</strong>re.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instruments were not available to individual <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderators.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ files C<strong>on</strong>sistency in <strong>the</strong> applicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> tool could not be verified as <strong>the</strong>completed tool was not available to <strong>Umalusi</strong> verifiers. No comments by <strong>the</strong> DBE SBA team could be found in <strong>the</strong> moderated sample. Theprovincial SBA coordinator indicated that no moderati<strong>on</strong> tools had been left at <strong>the</strong>PED. No recommendati<strong>on</strong>s by DBE SBA moderators could be found in ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> learners’portfolios or <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files. It was thus difficult to verify which files had in factbeen moderated by <strong>the</strong> DBE.233
Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasks The marking tools used in <strong>the</strong> two districts were acceptable. Only markingmemoranda were used to mark <strong>the</strong> learners’ tasks. The marking tools were fairly c<strong>on</strong>sistent. However, few educators appeared tounderstand <strong>the</strong> allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> method marks, and when learners should be penalisedfor including foreign items. The marking ranged from fair to poor due to <strong>the</strong> inc<strong>on</strong>sistent awarding <strong>of</strong> methodmarks and <strong>the</strong> penalising <strong>of</strong> learners for <strong>the</strong> inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> foreign items.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceGenerally, <strong>the</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> learners was not good. Learners struggled with coresubject secti<strong>on</strong>s such as ratios and analysis, <strong>the</strong> cash-flow statement and manufacturingaccounts.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsThere was evidence that internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at all levels had been d<strong>on</strong>e. However, <strong>the</strong>quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> was poor. Vague, short and n<strong>on</strong>-specific comments wereprovided, such as “dig deeper”, “work harder”, etc.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice Cluster moderati<strong>on</strong> at Kgoke Sec<strong>on</strong>dary and Makoko High schools was good andincluded corrective comments that highlihgted weaknesses, such as c<strong>on</strong>versi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>marks, performance <strong>of</strong> learners, recommendati<strong>on</strong>s, and so <strong>on</strong>. Evidence <strong>of</strong> pre-moderati<strong>on</strong> was visible in educators’ files for each assessment taskprovided. The moderati<strong>on</strong> was not thorough, however, and no corrective commentswere provided that would help improve <strong>the</strong> tasks before <strong>the</strong>y were written. In most schools analytical statistics forms were completed after every assessmenttask. The assessment tasks were organised in <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files in both districts and wereclearly demarcated and labelled in learners’ portfolios as well.Areas for improvement Method marks were not clearly indicated when marking, probably becauseteachers did not understand how to allocate <strong>the</strong>m. C<strong>on</strong>versi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks was not correctly d<strong>on</strong>e <strong>on</strong> some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mark sheets. This wasfound at Makoko High, N<strong>the</strong>ma Sec<strong>on</strong>dary, and Mashakwaneng Sec<strong>on</strong>dary schools. In N<strong>the</strong>ma Sec<strong>on</strong>dary and Kgoke High schools c<strong>on</strong>trol tests were set without regardfor technical aspects such as instructi<strong>on</strong>s, date, total marks and durati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>paper.234
Vague comments did not c<strong>on</strong>tribute to improvement in <strong>the</strong> subject. (See SedibengSec<strong>on</strong>dary School.) Learners’ performance was poor in certain secti<strong>on</strong>s, such as ratios and analysis,cash-flow statement and manufacturing accounts. Learners were not penalised for foreign items as is d<strong>on</strong>e in <strong>the</strong> final examinati<strong>on</strong>.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Method marks should be clearly differentiated from <strong>the</strong> normal marks/ticks to ensurethat learners recognise <strong>the</strong> difference. Method marks are allocated where part <strong>of</strong> ananswer is correct. C<strong>on</strong>versi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks should be standardised across <strong>the</strong> province. Teachers should behelped to understand this. All schools should adhere to <strong>the</strong> DBE SBA requirements regarding submissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>learners’ portfolios. All technical aspects <strong>of</strong> a questi<strong>on</strong> paper should be complied with when setting atest/task. Comments by moderators should be specific and helpful to <strong>the</strong> educator. Remedial work should be c<strong>on</strong>sidered to help learners understand core areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>subject. Workshops for teachers should be arranged if <strong>the</strong>re is doubt about <strong>the</strong>teachers’ own understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> work. Learners should be penalised for including foreign items in records and statements aspart <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir answers.AGRICULTURAL SCIENCESPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleIn <strong>on</strong>e district, <strong>on</strong>ly two schools complied with <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> requirements for submitting<strong>the</strong>ir files.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrument was not available to individual <strong>Umalusi</strong> m<strong>on</strong>itors.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ files235
The verifier did not comment <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong>.Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksThe marking guidelines for <strong>the</strong> mid-year examinati<strong>on</strong> and term tests were appropriate andsatisfied <strong>the</strong> SAG. The handwritten memorandum used by Makoko High did not makeprovisi<strong>on</strong> for enough alternative answers and was not user-friendly. The rubrics used forassignments, practical tasks and research projects were poorly developed and in somecases allowed learners to be awarded full marks.The marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers was c<strong>on</strong>sistent and accurate.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceThe general performance <strong>of</strong> learners in <strong>the</strong> mid-year and trial examinati<strong>on</strong>s wassatisfactory. Their marks in o<strong>the</strong>r SBA tasks were higher, mainly due to <strong>the</strong> poor design <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> rubric. Most learners resp<strong>on</strong>ded well to <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s,while o<strong>the</strong>rs struggled with simple basic calculati<strong>on</strong>s, as well as basic subject c<strong>on</strong>ceptsand terminology. No feedback was given to learners.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsThere was evidence <strong>of</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>e at cluster/district level during <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>dand third terms. However, <strong>the</strong>re was a total lack <strong>of</strong> in-school moderati<strong>on</strong>. Actual remarking<strong>of</strong> tasks should be d<strong>on</strong>e during moderati<strong>on</strong>.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice The schools adhered to <strong>the</strong> prescribed number <strong>of</strong> SBA tasks/comp<strong>on</strong>ents. The PED/district did well in setting comm<strong>on</strong> papers for <strong>the</strong> June and trialexaminati<strong>on</strong>s. The comm<strong>on</strong> provincial pace setters (work schedules) and recording instruments arevery helpful to educators in general. The assessment body has subject curriculum specialists who provide support andguidance to Agricultural Science teachers, especially those without agriculturalqualificati<strong>on</strong>s. Agricultural schools, such as Harry Oppenheimer and Settlers, could be used asresource centres.Areas for improvement Comm<strong>on</strong> exemplars <strong>of</strong> assignments, research projects and practical tasks could behelpful to struggling schools. Schools that have to design <strong>the</strong>ir own tasks need assistance with designing both <strong>the</strong>tasks and <strong>the</strong> rubrics to assess <strong>the</strong>m.236
Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> and m<strong>on</strong>itoring <strong>of</strong> SBA tasks must be streng<strong>the</strong>ned, and followedup to ensure that teachers implement <strong>the</strong> proposals. The programme <strong>of</strong> assessment plan and moderati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s for internal moderati<strong>on</strong>must be provided and be available in teachers’ files. The arrangement <strong>of</strong> teachers’ portfolios needs to be revisited to make <strong>the</strong>m moreaccessible.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Training in <strong>the</strong> setting <strong>of</strong> standardised questi<strong>on</strong> papers, designing appropriate tasksand rubrics should be seriously c<strong>on</strong>sidered. Comm<strong>on</strong> SBA tasks should be developed as exemplars. Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>, including in-school moderati<strong>on</strong>, must be streng<strong>the</strong>ned, andrecords made available to external moderators. In future <strong>the</strong> PED should comply with <strong>Umalusi</strong>’s requests to facilitate externalmoderati<strong>on</strong>.ENGLISH FALPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleApproximately 200 learners’ files from five schools in two districts were made available formoderati<strong>on</strong>. There was no <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> from <strong>the</strong> DBE indicating how many <strong>the</strong>y had moderated,and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderator had to go through all <strong>the</strong> files to find those that had beenmoderated by <strong>the</strong> DBE. Forty-seven files were selected for moderati<strong>on</strong>, as well as <strong>the</strong>teacher’s file from each school (10).<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrument was not available to individual <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderators.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesIt was difficult to assess <strong>the</strong> DBE’s moderati<strong>on</strong> according to <strong>the</strong>ir instrument without havingaccess to that instrument. There did not seem to be c<strong>on</strong>sistency between <strong>the</strong> two DBEmoderators, with <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong>fering more c<strong>on</strong>structive comments than <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r.237
Whatever moderati<strong>on</strong> instrument <strong>the</strong> DBE used, <strong>the</strong> work by <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir moderators, C.Barnard was excellently d<strong>on</strong>e. C<strong>on</strong>structive comments and critical observati<strong>on</strong>s weremade by this moderator, while <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r moderator merely signed where moderati<strong>on</strong> hadtaken place. The former’s questi<strong>on</strong>s were pertinent and relevant to both <strong>the</strong> educatorsand <strong>the</strong> learners.As no <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>of</strong> any kind was made available by <strong>the</strong> DBE, it cannot be stated what <strong>the</strong>recommendati<strong>on</strong>s were. However, based <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> comments by <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir moderators in<strong>the</strong> relevant files, it can be stated that <strong>the</strong> recommendati<strong>on</strong>s made were relevant andpertinent to both teachers and learners.Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksThe teachers’ files all c<strong>on</strong>tained memoranda <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasks to be completed by <strong>the</strong> learners.These memos were, by and large, accurate. Literature tasks had been set but weremarked using a writing rubric, a mistake made by most schools. In additi<strong>on</strong>, manyteachers were not using <strong>the</strong> writing rubrics correctly. They were also not indicating <strong>the</strong>breakdown <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marks. At Raselete Sec<strong>on</strong>dary School <strong>the</strong> rubric used to assess Task 11was a “home-made” versi<strong>on</strong> and was unacceptable. At Manoke Sec<strong>on</strong>dary School <strong>the</strong>rewas no evidence <strong>of</strong> Task 11 in <strong>the</strong> learners’ files.If incorrect rubrics had been used by some educators, <strong>the</strong>n evaluati<strong>on</strong> would have beenc<strong>on</strong>sistently incorrect. In some schools (Mashakwaneng, Sedibeng, Mathafeng, N<strong>the</strong>ma,Makoko and Kgoke) <strong>the</strong>re was evidence that a writing rubric had been used.In most cases <strong>the</strong> allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks and <strong>the</strong>ir transference to mark sheets had beenaccurately d<strong>on</strong>e. There were some discrepancies, however. At SephakabagthoSec<strong>on</strong>dary School, Task 13 was marked out <strong>of</strong> 80 and <strong>the</strong>n c<strong>on</strong>verted to a mark out <strong>of</strong> 30,but <strong>the</strong> memo was incomplete.One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> educators (N<strong>the</strong>ma) had not entered marks for <strong>the</strong> third term <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> marksheet. Moreover, <strong>the</strong>re was no work in <strong>the</strong> learners’ files for <strong>the</strong> third term. At MathafengSec<strong>on</strong>dary School <strong>the</strong> teacher had been instructed by <strong>the</strong> provincial moderator toinclude rubrics for Tasks 11 and 12, but this had not been d<strong>on</strong>e. At Raselete Sc<strong>on</strong>darySchool and Mathafeng <strong>the</strong>re was a lack <strong>of</strong> evidence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> last tasks having been d<strong>on</strong>e.This raises questi<strong>on</strong>s about how <strong>the</strong> final SBA marks were going to be calculated.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceGenerally, <strong>the</strong> learners had performed adequately. However, <strong>the</strong>re were some who hadhad difficulty with higher-order questi<strong>on</strong>s.238
Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsThe entire moderati<strong>on</strong> process at <strong>the</strong> school level needs overhauling. Although <strong>the</strong>re wasvery little evidence <strong>of</strong> school moderati<strong>on</strong>, <strong>the</strong>re was sufficient competent moderati<strong>on</strong>being d<strong>on</strong>e at <strong>the</strong> district, cluster and provincial levels. It appeared, however, that someeducators were not taking note <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderators’ comments.There was very little moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> actual learners’ work at school level – it isimperative that <strong>the</strong>y be guided in order to improve <strong>the</strong>ir work. Not <strong>on</strong>ly was <strong>the</strong>re nomoderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> learners’ work at school level, but also some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> essays had beenmarked superficially. Errors had not been identified and teachers tended to give ‘safe’average marks. Learners need guidance and <strong>the</strong>y can <strong>on</strong>ly learn from <strong>the</strong>ir mistakes if<strong>the</strong>ir mistakes are identified.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice Some teachers were making an effort to improve <strong>the</strong>ir learners’ abilities. Generally, <strong>the</strong> marking <strong>of</strong> tasks was accurate. As <strong>the</strong> tasks were comm<strong>on</strong>, <strong>the</strong>y were all <strong>of</strong> an acceptable level and standard.Areas for improvement Accurate moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learners’ work is needed at school level. The allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks for writing tasks was average, but errors were not identified. Incorrect rubrics were being used for <strong>the</strong> marking <strong>of</strong> oral tasks related to literature. SAG documents with full instructi<strong>on</strong>s were not being used, or were not being madeavailable to teachers, as <strong>the</strong>re were n<strong>on</strong>e in <strong>the</strong>ir files. The lack <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s was a problem. The <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderators needed<strong>the</strong>m if <strong>the</strong>y were to verify DBE moderati<strong>on</strong>. All tasks had to include instructi<strong>on</strong>s, dates, marks and time allocati<strong>on</strong>s. At Sedibeng <strong>the</strong> marking <strong>of</strong> summaries appeared to be a problem. There was no indicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> length <strong>of</strong> oral presentati<strong>on</strong>s. Tasks needed to be pro<strong>of</strong>read and moderated before being given to learners. Therewere too many spelling and grammatical errors. In some cases marking needed improvement. There were too many cases <strong>of</strong> incomplete tasks which would have a negativeimpact <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> learners’ results.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Work must be moderated at school level before it is moderated by clusters or <strong>the</strong>district. Teachers should indicate errors in essays so that learners can learn from <strong>the</strong>m.239
The relevant policy documents must be in <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files. Oral tasks so late in <strong>the</strong> year should focus <strong>on</strong> setworks for reinforcement, ra<strong>the</strong>r than<strong>on</strong> unrelated films or televisi<strong>on</strong> shows. Literature orals should be treated as oral and not written work. Tasks must be moderated and edited before being given to learners. It is recommended that DBE moderators should submit a <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> before leaving acentre so that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderators have an idea <strong>of</strong> how many files weremoderated. It is suggested that when previous examinati<strong>on</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers are used for tasks,learners should not be expected to do a two-hour paper in <strong>on</strong>e period. To avoid c<strong>on</strong>versi<strong>on</strong> errors tests should be set for <strong>the</strong> same number <strong>of</strong> marks asindicated <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> mark sheet. DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> should be planned for an earlier date to avoid having to collect filesjust before <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>.LIFE ORIENTATIONPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleFiles from 10 schools in two districts (Capricorn District and Greater Sekhukhune District)were submitted for external moderati<strong>on</strong>. The DBE moderated five files per school, whichwas a high percentage.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instruments Moderati<strong>on</strong> was thorough. Tasks were re-marked and marks recalculated. The DBEmoderati<strong>on</strong> and that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> provincial moderators c<strong>on</strong>curred. No copies <strong>of</strong> DBE <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were available to <strong>Umalusi</strong> and all <strong>the</strong> files had to besearched in order to identify those that had been moderated. The moderati<strong>on</strong> wasundertaken too late for <strong>the</strong> province to do anything about <strong>the</strong> subject. It was difficult to distinguish between DBE and provincial moderati<strong>on</strong>.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ files No comments or recommendati<strong>on</strong>s were made by <strong>the</strong> various moderators.Provincial moderati<strong>on</strong> was merely a compliance check.240
There were <strong>on</strong>ly two significant differences in <strong>the</strong> marks awarded. There was als<strong>of</strong>ound to be c<strong>on</strong>sistency between <strong>the</strong> marks <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> two DBE moderators. The DBEmoderati<strong>on</strong> appears to have been fair.Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksMarking varied from school to school. The marking <strong>of</strong> Secti<strong>on</strong> A <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CAT was meticulous,but <strong>the</strong>re were differences in <strong>the</strong> interpretati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Secti<strong>on</strong>s B and C.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceLearners’ performance appeared to be fair.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsInternal moderati<strong>on</strong> at schools had taken place. The <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderator could notdistinguish between <strong>the</strong> DBE and <strong>the</strong> provincial moderati<strong>on</strong>.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice Provincial moderati<strong>on</strong> was d<strong>on</strong>e. Learners’ tasks had been thoroughly marked and <strong>the</strong>re was little evidence <strong>of</strong> marksbeing changed. Learners’ and teachers’ files were neatly organised. Two schools had been selected for provincial marking, which had been d<strong>on</strong>ethoroughly. Limpopo has handled <strong>the</strong> assessment <strong>of</strong> Life Orientati<strong>on</strong> very well, and <strong>the</strong>re is aclear paper trail supporting <strong>the</strong> assessment and moderati<strong>on</strong>.Areas for improvement Generally, learners had problems with <strong>the</strong> CAT, revealing a lack <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tentknowledge. There was evidently poor preparati<strong>on</strong> for <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>. Learners were challenged when questi<strong>on</strong>s requiring higher-order cognitive skills wereasked. Moreover, <strong>the</strong>y struggled with <strong>the</strong> interpretati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasks. Language could have been a barrier, but learning and teaching were probably at<strong>the</strong> root <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> problem. There was significant deviati<strong>on</strong> between <strong>the</strong> June and <strong>the</strong> CAT marks. PET remains problematic, and <strong>the</strong>re has been no significant progress in <strong>the</strong>assessment <strong>of</strong> this subject.241
Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s There is a need to teach c<strong>on</strong>tent. The percepti<strong>on</strong> that Life Orientati<strong>on</strong> is based <strong>on</strong>general knowledge should be eradicated. Learners need to develop examinati<strong>on</strong> skills. The exemplar paper as well as <strong>the</strong> CATshould be used to guide <strong>the</strong> next group <strong>of</strong> learners <strong>on</strong> what to expect in <strong>the</strong> future. Educators need to attend workshops <strong>on</strong> how to set questi<strong>on</strong>s at various cognitivelevels, and <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> design and use <strong>of</strong> rubrics. Provinces need to develop real-life scenarios and questi<strong>on</strong>s should involve criticalthinking, evaluati<strong>on</strong>, analysis, syn<strong>the</strong>sis and problem solving. PET is not well placed as a comp<strong>on</strong>ent <strong>of</strong> Life Orientati<strong>on</strong>, and remains a negativefactor. The marks were inflated and bore no resemblance to reality. Learners should be taught <strong>the</strong> meaning <strong>of</strong> “discuss”, “explain”, “evaluate”,“analyse”, “critique”, etc. and how to resp<strong>on</strong>d to questi<strong>on</strong>s that include <strong>the</strong>se words.LIFE SCIENCESPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleIn o<strong>the</strong>r provinces five schools were selected per district, but in Limpopo <strong>on</strong>ly four schoolsper district were selected (Capricorn and Greater Sekhukhune). The reas<strong>on</strong> for this is notknown. The DBE moderated all eight schools, selecting files from <strong>the</strong> sample presented.Although <strong>the</strong> DBE moderated more than 10% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> files, it was not clear which files hadbeen moderated, and a lot <strong>of</strong> time was wasted establishing this.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> tool was not available, and <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> were notsupplied.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesThe quality and standard could not be established because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> a tool and<str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s. The DBE made comments <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> learners’ tasks, and <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasks and markingtools in <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files. Thorough moderati<strong>on</strong> was c<strong>on</strong>ducted, and errors were picked242
up that had been overlooked by previous moderati<strong>on</strong>. The comments will have a positiveimpact if implemented.Marking <strong>of</strong> tasksThe rubrics used were generally satisfactory, but some criteria led to unreliability. Use <strong>of</strong>rubrics within <strong>the</strong> schools <strong>the</strong>mselves was usually c<strong>on</strong>sistent, but <strong>the</strong>re was someinc<strong>on</strong>sistency across various schools. Marks were generally fairly high for <strong>the</strong> practical tasksand assignments in comparis<strong>on</strong> with <strong>the</strong> preliminary exams. The way rubrics weredesigned, however, probably inflated <strong>the</strong> marks. Ano<strong>the</strong>r reas<strong>on</strong> could be that <strong>the</strong> taskswere generally short and focused <strong>on</strong> a particular topic and skill.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsThere was evidence <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> in green and black ink, which indicated various levels.In some cases <strong>the</strong>re was merely a signature and no evidence <strong>of</strong> re-marking.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice The attempt to standardise tasks is to be commended. All required tasks had been completed. Teachers’ files were well organised and neatly presented. There was evidence <strong>of</strong> various levels <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>, with evidence <strong>of</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <strong>on</strong>moderati<strong>on</strong>/m<strong>on</strong>itoring in <strong>the</strong> educators’ files. The preliminary examinati<strong>on</strong>s were fair and valid. Standardised moderati<strong>on</strong> templates were provided by <strong>the</strong> PED. Sequencing <strong>of</strong> items in files was standardised.Areas for improvement Comm<strong>on</strong> tasks should be thoroughly scrutinised and moderated. Errors were found in<strong>the</strong> memorandum. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> criteria in rubrics were unreliable. Group dynamics should not besubjected to evaluati<strong>on</strong> by rubric. C<strong>on</strong>sequently, unreliable rubrics led to too highmarks being awarded. There was no form <strong>of</strong> feedback to learners. Learners should be encouraged to do correcti<strong>on</strong>s.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s By including higher-order questi<strong>on</strong>s in homework and class activities, learners wouldbe better prepared for <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> work required in examinati<strong>on</strong>s. Tasks and memoranda should be moderated before being implemented.243
Moderators should clearly date and sign <strong>the</strong> tasks after moderati<strong>on</strong>, and indicate<strong>the</strong>ir designati<strong>on</strong>. Evidence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> practical work d<strong>on</strong>e, for example photographs, should be included. Rubrics are not <strong>the</strong> <strong>on</strong>ly form <strong>of</strong> assessment tool, and memoranda should also beused where possible. Weighting grids should be used when tests are set, which will ensure <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> tests.MPUMALANGAACCOUNTINGPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleIt was difficult to find out precisely what <strong>the</strong> DBE had moderated because <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficialscould give <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderators no indicati<strong>on</strong>. There was also some c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong> regarding<strong>the</strong> colour <strong>of</strong> pens used. From evidence discovered in <strong>the</strong> files that were moderated,however, it was clear that <strong>the</strong> DBE had d<strong>on</strong>e extensive moderati<strong>on</strong>.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrument was not available to individual <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderators.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE IN LEARNERS’ FILESMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ files On <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> what was observed it was apparent that time had been spent <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>moderati<strong>on</strong> process. Comments were c<strong>on</strong>sistent throughout. The standard <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> was generally very good, and valuable comments wereput in <strong>the</strong> files. As <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> tool was not available comment <strong>on</strong> recommendati<strong>on</strong>s is notpossible.244
Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksThe DBE moderators did an extensive amount <strong>of</strong> re-marking.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performancePerusal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mark sheets revealed very poor results. Most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s throughout <strong>the</strong> year had remarked <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> poor performance.Large discrepancies were picked up in many schools between <strong>the</strong> formal and informalmarks. A case study d<strong>on</strong>e in <strong>the</strong> Gert Sibande district included a budget questi<strong>on</strong> and asimilar task was asked in <strong>the</strong> trials. Individual learners <strong>of</strong>ten did well in <strong>the</strong> case study, but<strong>the</strong>n could not answer <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> trials.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levels Moderati<strong>on</strong> was basically n<strong>on</strong>-existent in <strong>the</strong> schools, but m<strong>on</strong>itoring had been d<strong>on</strong>e.However, moderati<strong>on</strong> did not pick up <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> tasks were not at anacceptable level.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice The whole province wrote a comm<strong>on</strong> trial questi<strong>on</strong> paper. The standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> June and trial examinati<strong>on</strong>s was satisfactory. Although questi<strong>on</strong>s had been taken from previous questi<strong>on</strong> papers, a good balancewas maintained with assessment across <strong>the</strong> LOs and a good spread <strong>of</strong> cognitivelevels.Areas for improvement The c<strong>on</strong>trol tests were <strong>of</strong> a lower standard, although <strong>the</strong>y were <strong>of</strong>ten taken fromo<strong>the</strong>r sources. The focus was <strong>on</strong> lower-order skills. No analysis grids were evident in any <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files. The alternative forms <strong>of</strong> assessment did not meet <strong>the</strong> criteria. The project was not aproject, but an accounting task. The o<strong>the</strong>r two tasks were straight accounting tasks<strong>of</strong> a very low order. Learners scored very high marks in <strong>the</strong>se lower-order forms <strong>of</strong> assessment, whichwere out <strong>of</strong> line with candidates’ performance in <strong>the</strong> formal examinati<strong>on</strong>s. The alternative forms <strong>of</strong> assessment have not achieved <strong>the</strong>ir goal, which was toenable learners to be assessed in o<strong>the</strong>r ways besides formal accounting tests.Because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> poor structure and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> forms <strong>of</strong> assessment, <strong>the</strong> learnersdid not realise this benefit. Very little moderati<strong>on</strong> had taken place, but that which had taken place focused <strong>on</strong><strong>the</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> tasks over which <strong>the</strong> teacher has no c<strong>on</strong>trol. The moderati<strong>on</strong> should245
have focused <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking. In some cases <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> form did not agree with<strong>the</strong> task being moderated. At Mchaka High School <strong>the</strong> last alternative task was not included. It appeared that ithad not been d<strong>on</strong>e. In <strong>the</strong> Gert Sibande district <strong>the</strong>re were massive variati<strong>on</strong>s in marks between formaland informal assessment. Learners achieved almost full marks in <strong>the</strong> project and casestudy, and almost nothing in <strong>the</strong> formal examinati<strong>on</strong>s. In some cases <strong>the</strong> marks were entered incorrectly <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> mark sheets. Where scriptswere moderated, marks were not adjusted.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s The DBE needs to think carefully about <strong>the</strong> feasibility <strong>of</strong> setting comm<strong>on</strong> tasks, as thistakes away <strong>the</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>sibility and creative ability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> individual teachers. Theteachers need to be forced to start setting some tasks. If this is to c<strong>on</strong>tinue, it is essential that tasks should be set according to <strong>the</strong> SAGcognitive level norms. Teachers cannot be expected to take resp<strong>on</strong>sibility for poorperformance at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> year if <strong>the</strong>y had had no hand in setting <strong>the</strong> tasks. The PED should insist that grids be prepared for every task. Teachers should be taughthow to apply <strong>the</strong> grids and no paper should be accepted without c<strong>on</strong>tent andcognitive level grids in future. The PED needs to come <strong>on</strong> board regarding <strong>the</strong> alternative forms <strong>of</strong> assessment. Thishas been menti<strong>on</strong>ed in previous <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s and can no l<strong>on</strong>ger be ignored.C<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>Those who were involved in setting <strong>the</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> papers had d<strong>on</strong>e a goodjob, and learners were being exposed to what was required <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m.No <strong>on</strong>e attended <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>-back meeting. This was because it was held at an extremelybusy time <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> year, as well as <strong>the</strong> l<strong>on</strong>g distances involved. It was agreed that a copy <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> would be emailed to Mr Bu<strong>the</strong>lezi.AGRICULTURAL SCIENCESPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleLearners’ and teachers’ files were submitted for external moderati<strong>on</strong> from three districtsand nine schools.246
<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrument was not available to individual <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderators.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesThe verifier did not <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong>.Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksThe marking guidelines for <strong>the</strong> mid-year examinati<strong>on</strong> and term tests were appropriate,and as required by <strong>the</strong> SAG document. However, <strong>the</strong> handwritten marking memorandafor Phendulani Sec<strong>on</strong>dary School did not have enough alternative answers and was notuser-friendly. Moreover, <strong>the</strong> rubrics used for assessing assignments were poorly developedand did not provide a balanced outcome.The marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers was c<strong>on</strong>sistent and accurate in most <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> schools, but some schools did not include <strong>the</strong> trial examinati<strong>on</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers andmemoranda in <strong>the</strong> teachers’ file. In some instances <strong>the</strong> scripts were not available in <strong>the</strong>learners’ files.The teachers/markers adhered to <strong>the</strong> marking memoranda when marking c<strong>on</strong>trolled testsand mid-year questi<strong>on</strong> papers.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceThe general performance <strong>of</strong> learners in both <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trolled tests and <strong>the</strong> mid-yearexaminati<strong>on</strong> was satisfactory. However, <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers, memoranda, scripts andmark sheets for <strong>the</strong> trial examinati<strong>on</strong> were not available for moderati<strong>on</strong>. In most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>schools <strong>the</strong> mark sheets were incomplete, with some tasks and examinati<strong>on</strong>s not beingrecorded. Some learners scored unrealistically high marks for tasks because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> poorlydesigned rubrics being used.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsThere was evidence that some cluster/district internal moderati<strong>on</strong> had been d<strong>on</strong>e during<strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d and third terms. However, <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> instrument differed completely from<strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s that could be used by teachers to improve <strong>the</strong> administrati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>SBA. A lack <strong>of</strong> rigour was identified in terms <strong>of</strong> in-school moderati<strong>on</strong>. The internalmoderati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were not informative; and it would seem that internal moderati<strong>on</strong>needs to be streng<strong>the</strong>ned.247
Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice The PED have subject curriculum specialists who provide support and guidance forAgricultural Science teachers, especially those without agricultural training. The schools are commended for adhering to <strong>the</strong> prescribed number <strong>of</strong> SBAtasks/comp<strong>on</strong>ents. The provincial assessment body did well in setting comm<strong>on</strong> papers for term tests,June and trial examinati<strong>on</strong>s. The comm<strong>on</strong> provincial pacesetters and recording instruments were very helpful,especially to novice educators. Agricultural schools, such as Mat<strong>the</strong>ws Phosa, Sine<strong>the</strong>mba and Umzimcelo, can beused as resource centres.Areas for improvement Comm<strong>on</strong> exemplars <strong>of</strong> assignments, research projects and practical tasks could behelpful to struggling schools that performed poorly in designing appropriate SBAtasks. Assistance is required for those schools who designed <strong>the</strong>ir own tasks. Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> and m<strong>on</strong>itoring <strong>of</strong> SBA tasks should be streng<strong>the</strong>ned and afollow-up programme should be put in place to ensure that teachers implement <strong>the</strong>moderators’ suggesti<strong>on</strong>s. The programme <strong>of</strong> assessment plan and internal moderati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s for SBA tasksshould be kept in <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files so as to be accessible to external moderators. The arrangement <strong>of</strong> teachers’ and learners’ files should revised to make <strong>the</strong>m moreaccessible.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Training in setting standardised questi<strong>on</strong> papers and designing appropriate researchtasks and projects, as well as rubrics to assess <strong>the</strong>m, should be <strong>of</strong>fered and ought tobe very helpful to extend teachers’ skills. Comm<strong>on</strong> SBA tasks should be developed as exemplars. Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at all levels should be streng<strong>the</strong>ned and records should bemade available to <strong>the</strong> external moderators. The process <strong>of</strong> in-school moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> tasks, as well as before and after it is d<strong>on</strong>e,should be streng<strong>the</strong>ned, and records kept.248
LIFE ORIENTATIONPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleTwo districts had been pre-selected by <strong>the</strong> DBE. Gert Sibande District submitted <strong>the</strong> LifeOrientati<strong>on</strong> teachers’ and learners’ files <strong>of</strong> five schools, while Bohlabelo District submittedfiles from four schools.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe moderati<strong>on</strong> instrument was appropriate.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesThe province made use <strong>of</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> tasks. The DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> was <strong>the</strong> third level <strong>of</strong>moderati<strong>on</strong> carried out <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>se tasks and moderati<strong>on</strong> was thorough, with clearfeedback <strong>on</strong> each task. The comments were developmental and indicated <strong>the</strong> errors thathad been made. All in all <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> was found to have been thorough.Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksThe comm<strong>on</strong> task had been re-marked and detailed feedback was provided. Althoughtasks were <strong>of</strong> fairly good quality, <strong>the</strong>re was no variety in <strong>the</strong> forms <strong>of</strong> assessment. Thec<strong>on</strong>tent was not addressed at <strong>the</strong> required level.The format <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> June examinati<strong>on</strong> was not in line with <strong>the</strong> current SAG document for LifeOrientati<strong>on</strong>. There was also no clear evidence that PET had been implemented. Thewr<strong>on</strong>g rubric for a ball game was included and <strong>the</strong> results were unrealistic.Memoranda and rubrics were unsatisfactory, as <strong>the</strong>y did not reflect <strong>the</strong> cognitivedemands <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s and <strong>the</strong> rubrics were too generic and were put to incorrect useat times. A rubric for running, for example, was used for assessment <strong>of</strong> a dance.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceThere were no comments <strong>on</strong> this aspect.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levels249
There was no evidence <strong>of</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong>, and <strong>the</strong>re were no <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s available. Therewas <strong>on</strong>ly a checklist to verify <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> various documents and <strong>the</strong>re was noevidence <strong>of</strong> pre-moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> sampled tasks. Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>ducted by <strong>the</strong>districts lacked rigour.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice Educators’ files were arranged well. Comm<strong>on</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> papers were found to be an effective tool for settingacceptable standards.Areas for improvement Tasks were not pitched at <strong>the</strong> appropriate cognitive levels. The use <strong>of</strong> rubrics was inappropriate. Most HODs at schools are not subject specialists, and were not able to moderate LifeOrientati<strong>on</strong> tasks.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Comm<strong>on</strong> tasks should be error-free and pitched at <strong>the</strong> appropriate level. Clusters and districts should c<strong>on</strong>duct internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at least twice a year.Moderati<strong>on</strong> should include qualitative and developmental feedback. Tasks should c<strong>on</strong>tain a variety <strong>of</strong> forms <strong>of</strong> assessment, and appropriate weighting. Examinati<strong>on</strong>s set at schools should be moderated to ensure quality and rigour. Higher-order questi<strong>on</strong>s should be included in assessment at all levels. Moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> scripts should not c<strong>on</strong>stitute mere shadow-marking.LIFE SCIENCESPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleFive schools from each <strong>of</strong> two districts (Gert Sibande and Bohlabela) were pre-selected. Atotal <strong>of</strong> 32 files out <strong>of</strong> 129 or 24,8% were moderated by <strong>the</strong> DBE. Only 10 files per schoolwere submitted by Gert Sibande district. While no <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were available, <strong>the</strong>re was clearevidence <strong>of</strong> re-marking by <strong>the</strong> DBE moderator.250
<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> tool was fairly comprehensive. However, <strong>the</strong> tool did not makeprovisi<strong>on</strong> for feedback which is an important aspect <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesThere appeared to have been a great deal <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sistency in moderati<strong>on</strong>. This was based<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> evidence in <strong>the</strong> files <strong>of</strong> thorough re-marking. There was no evidence <strong>of</strong> anycomments or o<strong>the</strong>r inputs, however. The moderators did identify some errors in marking,but <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence <strong>of</strong> recommendati<strong>on</strong>s having been made.Marking <strong>of</strong> tasksIn general <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum for <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d comm<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trolled test wassatisfactory, except for <strong>on</strong>e error. Rubrics for practical tasks were sometimes poorlydesigned and <strong>the</strong>re was no inter-rater reliability. One practical task set in <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>districts did not satisfy <strong>the</strong> SAG requirements. Moreover, <strong>the</strong>re was inc<strong>on</strong>sistency inapplicati<strong>on</strong> across different schools. Some marks were awarded unfairly due to <strong>the</strong>unreliable rubric.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceLearners’ overall performance was negatively influenced by poorly designed rubrics.There were also c<strong>on</strong>versi<strong>on</strong> errors.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsThere was evidence <strong>of</strong> various levels <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>, but <strong>on</strong>ly in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> a signature.There was no evidence <strong>of</strong> re-marking. The lack <strong>of</strong> any form <strong>of</strong> feedback wasdisheartening.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practiceThe use <strong>of</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> tasks c<strong>on</strong>stituted good practice.Areas <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cern The tasks and tests were not thoroughly moderated. The nature and requirements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> various practical tasks were not fully understoodby teachers. There were errors in <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> test.251
A weighting grid was not used when setting tests and tasks. There was a lack <strong>of</strong> feedback to teachers and learners..Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s The importance <strong>of</strong> thorough pre-moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> tests and tasks cannot be overemphasised. The memorandum for comm<strong>on</strong> tests/tasks should be discussed at a memo discussi<strong>on</strong>before marking proceeds. It is imperative that weighting grids be used for <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent and cognitive levels <strong>of</strong>tasks and tests. Clear feedback is <strong>the</strong> hallmark <strong>of</strong> competent moderati<strong>on</strong>.NORTHERN CAPEGEOGRAPHYPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleIt appeared that DBE tried to moderate 10% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sample, but <strong>the</strong>y were not c<strong>on</strong>sistent in<strong>the</strong> tasks <strong>the</strong>y moderated. This created problems for <strong>the</strong> external moderator.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsNo moderati<strong>on</strong> instruments were available.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesThe DBE merely shadow-marked learners’ tasks; however, <strong>the</strong>y failed to pick up errors suchas resp<strong>on</strong>ses not marked.C<strong>on</strong>sistency could not be determined, as <strong>the</strong>re were no comments, <strong>on</strong>ly signatures. Norecommendati<strong>on</strong>s were in evidence.252
Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksThe memoranda and rubrics used appeared to be fair. Alternative answers were providedin <strong>the</strong> memoranda.In most cases <strong>the</strong> memo was used c<strong>on</strong>sistently. Learners’ marks were allocated by usingticks which represented marks.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceLearners did not perform well in <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s, and <strong>the</strong>y obviously struggled withsource-based questi<strong>on</strong>s and applicati<strong>on</strong>, especially in higher-order questi<strong>on</strong>s.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsThere was evidence <strong>of</strong> all levels <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>, if <strong>on</strong>e assumes that different pen coloursrepresent different levels <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>. However, this process c<strong>on</strong>stituted m<strong>on</strong>itoringra<strong>the</strong>r than moderati<strong>on</strong>, which is qualitative. In some schools moderati<strong>on</strong> was evident in<strong>the</strong> teachers’ files, but not in <strong>the</strong> learners’ files.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice Learners had completed all seven tasks. All learner evidence was marked by teachers. Assessment tasks were standardised at both district and provincial level, and learnerswere <strong>the</strong>refore assessed with balanced tasks.Areas for improvement C<strong>on</strong>structive feedback should be given at all levels. It was not clear who actually did <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>. Signatures and designati<strong>on</strong>s shouldbe appended.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Informal assessment could be used to prepare learners for <strong>the</strong> tasks that form part <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> Programme <strong>of</strong> Assessment. Officials involved in <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> SBA at all levels need to be empowered. DBA moderators should give informative feedback to all stakeholders.253
HISTORYPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleFive schools from each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> two districts were selected for external moderati<strong>on</strong>, hence10 schools. The files <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>ly seven schools were received, however.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsNo moderati<strong>on</strong> instruments were available.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesWithout a completed instrument it was not possible to comment <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sistency <strong>of</strong> itsuse. The quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderators’ inputs was <strong>the</strong>refore unknown. The quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>feedback and recommendati<strong>on</strong>s in learners’ files was, however, informative.Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksThe memoranda and rubrics used appeared to be appropriate, with <strong>the</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al rubric in<strong>the</strong> SAG being used. Alternative answers were provided in <strong>the</strong> memoranda.Marking was mainly <strong>of</strong> an acceptable standard, but <strong>the</strong> marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> research projectand extended writing comp<strong>on</strong>ents was inc<strong>on</strong>sistent and, in some instances, <strong>the</strong> latterwere not fully marked. There was, however, some c<strong>on</strong>sistency in <strong>the</strong> applicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>marking tools.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performancePerformance ranged from fair to good. Some learners had an understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>c<strong>on</strong>tent and had <strong>the</strong> associated historical and literary skills needed to express <strong>the</strong>mselves.Those who performed poorly usually had difficulty expressing <strong>the</strong>mselves in English, whilesome simply lacked c<strong>on</strong>tent knowledge, indicating that <strong>the</strong>y had not studied enough.254
Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsThere was evidence <strong>of</strong> all levels <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>, but <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> at schools lackedrigour, especially <strong>on</strong> what was originally planned and what was formally assessed. Therewas evidence <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> at cluster level. There was very little feedback, however andwhat <strong>the</strong>re was comprised mainly a tick-box exercise.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice The portfolio system was well organised and managed and files were <strong>the</strong>reforeaccessible. They presented a clear picture <strong>of</strong> history teaching in <strong>the</strong> province. SBA activities were d<strong>on</strong>e <strong>on</strong> a c<strong>on</strong>tinuous basis, and were integrated with teaching. Assessment tasks were standardised at both district and provincial level, and thisworked well. The comm<strong>on</strong> tasks were <strong>of</strong> a good standard.Areas for improvement In some schools <strong>the</strong> heritage assignment was not fully marked. There was still a great deal <strong>of</strong> reliance <strong>on</strong> previous examinati<strong>on</strong> papers. There was no evidence <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong>, except a signature <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> fr<strong>on</strong>t page <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> learners’ portfolios. There seemed not to have been any engagement in anyform <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Cluster/district moderati<strong>on</strong> should be more frequent and rigorous and should beundertaken by <strong>the</strong> subject advisor. The cluster leader should provide support regarding <strong>the</strong> SBA document at schoolswhere <strong>the</strong> HOD is not a subject specialist. Teachers need to be oriented <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> various forms <strong>of</strong> assessment, particularlyextended writing and its assessment. They should also be trained in <strong>the</strong> developmentand assessment <strong>of</strong> rubrics. Teachers should be encouraged to set <strong>the</strong>ir own assessment instruments and toreuse previous questi<strong>on</strong> papers <strong>on</strong>ly as a standardisati<strong>on</strong> tool. The DBE instrument and <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> should be made available to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderators. The identificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> best practices is encouraged in order to support schools.255
LIFE ORIENTATIONPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleTwo under-performing districts were selected by <strong>the</strong> DBE, JT Gaetsewe District, and PixleyKa Seme district, and five schools from each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> districts submitted teachers’ andlearners’ Life Orientati<strong>on</strong> files.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe moderati<strong>on</strong> instrument was appropriate.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesThe DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> was <strong>the</strong> third level <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> carried out <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>se tasks. Themoderati<strong>on</strong> was thorough, with clear feedback <strong>on</strong>e each task. The comments weredevelopmental and indicated <strong>the</strong> errors that had been made. The province had madeuse <strong>of</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> tasks and <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> had been thorough.Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksAll schools had d<strong>on</strong>e <strong>the</strong> same comm<strong>on</strong> provincial tasks, which had been re-marked, anddetailed feedback was provided. Marking guidelines were clear. The format <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Juneexaminati<strong>on</strong> was in line with <strong>the</strong> current SAG document for Life Orientati<strong>on</strong>. There were,however, many grammatical and typing errors. There was evidence that PET had beenimplemented, as well as clear evidence that all schools had engaged learners in <strong>the</strong> threefocus areas, fitness, games and sport, and recreati<strong>on</strong> and relaxati<strong>on</strong>. However, <strong>the</strong>schools interpreted <strong>the</strong> SAG individually.Memoranda and rubrics were unsatisfactory, as <strong>the</strong>y did not reflect <strong>the</strong> cognitivedemands <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s and <strong>the</strong> rubrics were too generic and were put to incorrect useat times. A rubric for running, for example, was used for a dance assessment.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceTeachers were quite rigid in <strong>the</strong>ir marking, not acknowledging valid alternatives, and thisdisadvantaged learners. All schools performed badly in <strong>the</strong> DBE CAT. A c<strong>on</strong>siderablenumber <strong>of</strong> learners failed, with marks ranging from 7 to 48 out <strong>of</strong> 75.256
Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsThere was evidence <strong>of</strong> detailed internal moderati<strong>on</strong>. Although <strong>the</strong>re was feedback,except in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> PET, it was not detailed enough.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice All five assessment tasks complied with <strong>the</strong> weighting and descripti<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> relevantpolicy documents. Meaningful feedback from <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> was given to teachers. In some schools <strong>the</strong>re was evidence <strong>of</strong> face moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> PET.Areas for improvementTypographical and grammatical errors were found in <strong>the</strong> June paper. There was also aproblem with some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> numbering which led to c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>.There were individual schools that did not calculate marks properly or whose recordkeepingwas inadequate.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Comm<strong>on</strong> tasks should be error-free and pitched at <strong>the</strong> appropriate level. The twinning <strong>of</strong> struggling schools with o<strong>the</strong>rs that are performing better should bec<strong>on</strong>sidered. Clusters and districts should c<strong>on</strong>duct internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at least twice a year, andin-school moderati<strong>on</strong> should take place even more regularly. Moderati<strong>on</strong> shouldinclude qualitative and developmental feedback. PET assessment should be developed according to <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> task.LIFE SCIENCESPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleTwo districts were pre-selected, JT Gaetsewe District and Pixley KaSeme District, and <strong>the</strong>ysubmitted files from five and four schools respectively. Twenty learners’ files werepresented, and <strong>on</strong>ly those moderated by <strong>the</strong> DBE were moderated.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe moderati<strong>on</strong> tool was not available, with <strong>on</strong>ly signatures and dates being evidencethat DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> had been d<strong>on</strong>e.257
PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesIn <strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> instrument and <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s, c<strong>on</strong>sistency <strong>of</strong> applicati<strong>on</strong> could not becommented up<strong>on</strong>. There were no comments or recommendati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> learners’ work.Marking <strong>of</strong> tasksMarking tools were generally appropriate and accurate. There were some instanceswhere resp<strong>on</strong>ses were marked right, although <strong>the</strong>y did not appear in <strong>the</strong> memorandum.Tools were generally used appropriately and c<strong>on</strong>sistently and mark allocati<strong>on</strong> was fair.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceLearners’ performance was average to poor. Answering essay questi<strong>on</strong>s was a challengeand <strong>the</strong>y also battled with hypo<strong>the</strong>sis testing.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsThere was evidence <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> at various levels. Moderati<strong>on</strong> instruments for school,cluster and district level moderati<strong>on</strong> were available in <strong>the</strong> files.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice All <strong>the</strong> required tasks had been d<strong>on</strong>e. The assessment tasks were <strong>of</strong> an acceptable standard. Marking was fairly accurate and according to <strong>the</strong> assessment tools. Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was being d<strong>on</strong>e. Marks had been c<strong>on</strong>verted and mark sheets completed.Areas for improvement The moderati<strong>on</strong> instrument at school level was geared mainly for m<strong>on</strong>itoring, andneeded to include qualitative aspects. Feedback had not been given at any level.258
Recommendati<strong>on</strong>sAnswers that have been marked right must be added to <strong>the</strong> marking tool.Standardisati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> colour <strong>of</strong> pens used for moderati<strong>on</strong> would be <strong>of</strong> great help.NORTH WESTACCOUNTINGPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleTwo districts, Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompai and Dr Kenneth Kaunda, were selected by <strong>the</strong>DBE for moderati<strong>on</strong>. Five schools per district were chosen, and 20 learners’ files andteachers’ files were sent from each school. This requirement was adhered to except in <strong>the</strong>case <strong>of</strong> Lodirile Tswaing High School, which submitted three out <strong>of</strong> a possible 14 learners’files. An additi<strong>on</strong>al school, Rethusegile Sec<strong>on</strong>dary from Bojanala District, was alsomoderated by <strong>the</strong> DBE SBA team and verified by <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> verifier.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsDBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instruments were not available.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesC<strong>on</strong>sistency in <strong>the</strong> applicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> tool could not be verified as <strong>the</strong> toolwas not supplied to <strong>Umalusi</strong> verifiers.No comments made by <strong>the</strong> DBE SBA moderators could be found in <strong>the</strong> moderatedsample. No moderati<strong>on</strong> recommendati<strong>on</strong>s could be found in ei<strong>the</strong>r learners’ portfolios orteachers’ files.Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasks The marking tools used in two districts were found to be unacceptable, as <strong>the</strong> rubricused to assess <strong>the</strong> case study c<strong>on</strong>tained vague criteria that were very subjective. Theawarding <strong>of</strong> method marks was generally not d<strong>on</strong>e correctly.259
The marking tools were used fairly c<strong>on</strong>sistently, although <strong>the</strong> allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> methodmarks and <strong>the</strong> inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> foreign items emerged as a challenge for most educators. The marking was found to be fair in some schools and poor in o<strong>the</strong>rs due toinc<strong>on</strong>sistent awarding <strong>of</strong> method marks and <strong>the</strong> penalising <strong>of</strong> learners for includingforeign items.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceGenerally, <strong>the</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> learners was poor. Learners experienced difficultiesanswering core subject secti<strong>on</strong>s such as ratios and analysis and cash flow statements and<strong>the</strong>ory questi<strong>on</strong>s in general also posed problems.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsInternal moderati<strong>on</strong> at all levels was found at most schools, with sufficient evidence <strong>of</strong>such in educators’ files. However, <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> was very low, and anyremarks were vague. Evidence <strong>of</strong> pre-moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> tasks could not be found.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice The requirements for external moderati<strong>on</strong> were adhered to in most cases. There was evidence <strong>of</strong> cluster, district and provincial moderati<strong>on</strong> in educators’ filesat most schools. Learners’ marks were correctly c<strong>on</strong>verted and transferred to mark sheets in mostcases. Comm<strong>on</strong> tests, tasks and examinati<strong>on</strong>s were provided across <strong>the</strong> districts.Areas for improvement The case study provided to learners in two districts was irrelevant for Accounting as asubject and not linked directly to <strong>the</strong> assessment standards for <strong>the</strong> subject. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking in <strong>the</strong> preparatory examinati<strong>on</strong> was found to be wr<strong>on</strong>g. SeeQ1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 at Lephatsimile High School. At some schools <strong>the</strong> teachers were too generous with <strong>the</strong>ory marks (see Reab<strong>on</strong>aSec<strong>on</strong>dary School) and learners were not penalised for <strong>the</strong> inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> foreign items. The rubric for assessing <strong>the</strong> case study was inappropriate. School-based moderati<strong>on</strong> was not d<strong>on</strong>e at several schools. There was also noevidence <strong>of</strong> pre-moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> tasks, or <strong>of</strong> learners’ work. Learners experienced difficulties with major porti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> work. There was a big gap between learners’ performance in tasks set at <strong>the</strong> school, andcomm<strong>on</strong> tests and examinati<strong>on</strong>s. This was an indicati<strong>on</strong> that <strong>the</strong> school-set tasks didnot satisfy <strong>the</strong> SAG norms for cognitive levels. There appeared to be some dish<strong>on</strong>esty in <strong>the</strong> preparatory examinati<strong>on</strong>s at Leruntse-Lesedi Sec<strong>on</strong>dary School, where three learners presented answers to questi<strong>on</strong>s that260
were identical to <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum. A similar situati<strong>on</strong> was found atRethuseng Sec<strong>on</strong>dary School in <strong>the</strong> first c<strong>on</strong>trol test. Some educators’ work schedules had not been updated to 2012. Method marks were not awarded where required. Learners’ marks were found to be rounded <strong>of</strong>f and not recorded to <strong>on</strong>e decimalpoint as required. Case study marks were also incorrectly entered at some schools. There was no evidence <strong>of</strong> feedback to learners in <strong>the</strong>ir portfolios. Teachers’ files c<strong>on</strong>tain too much unnecessary material.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s All assessment tasks should be relevant to <strong>the</strong> subject and address <strong>the</strong> LOs and ASs.They should be aimed at preparing learners for <strong>the</strong>ir final examinati<strong>on</strong>s. Learners should be penalised for including foreign items in <strong>the</strong>ir answers in order toprepare <strong>the</strong>m for <strong>the</strong> final examinati<strong>on</strong>s. Rubrics should be clear and easy to use. Accordingly, a sec<strong>on</strong>d marker should beable to arrive at more or less <strong>the</strong> same mark. Moderati<strong>on</strong> at school level is very important and it should be encouraged in order tocorrect weaknesses and errors in tasks before <strong>the</strong>y are given to learners. Evidenceshould be available in <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files. Schools should c<strong>on</strong>sider remedial work <strong>on</strong> core secti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> work with whichlearners are having difficulty. Examinati<strong>on</strong>s and tests should be treated with <strong>the</strong> same c<strong>on</strong>fidentiality as finalexaminati<strong>on</strong>s to discourage dish<strong>on</strong>esty. Work schedules should be updated and reformulated every year. Teachers should learn how to award method marks, as <strong>the</strong>se are essential. Teachers should attend workshops <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>versi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks. Learners should be provided with feedback <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir work. Teachers should be encouraged to arrange <strong>the</strong>ir files neatly and pr<strong>of</strong>essi<strong>on</strong>ally with<strong>on</strong>ly <strong>the</strong> required documentati<strong>on</strong> inside.GEOGRAPHYPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleThe files were submitted as required, and 10% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m were moderated by <strong>the</strong> DBEmoderator.261
<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe DBE instrument was appropriate and provided moderators with subheadings thatallowed for interacti<strong>on</strong> with <strong>the</strong> learners’ files. The instrument covered issues <strong>of</strong> compliancewith policy and quality.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ files Learners’ tasks had been re-marked thoroughly and some mistakes in markingpicked up. Totals had been changed in <strong>the</strong> learners’ files, but not <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> marksheets. There was c<strong>on</strong>sistency in <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> instrument in all <strong>the</strong> files that weremoderated. Although <strong>the</strong>re were no comments, <strong>the</strong>ir inputs had been effective in correcting <strong>the</strong>marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> teachers, as <strong>the</strong> teachers had struggled to understand <strong>the</strong> memoand had made many mistakes. Written recommendati<strong>on</strong>s were not available, but <strong>the</strong> DBE moderators hadapparently given a brief <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir last day.Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksThe memorandum provided alternative answers, and a range <strong>of</strong> calculati<strong>on</strong>s wereprovided for map work. Most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> memos were from previous years’ questi<strong>on</strong> papers.There was <strong>on</strong>e problem with a memo not being in alignment with <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper, andincorrect c<strong>on</strong>versi<strong>on</strong> units had been used.The memo had not been being used c<strong>on</strong>sistently in <strong>the</strong> schools. This might be due to alack <strong>of</strong> knowledge <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> educators. Fairness was not evident in all schools, asin some cases learners were awarded marks <strong>the</strong>y did not deserve, while in o<strong>the</strong>rs learnerswere deprived <strong>of</strong> marks because <strong>the</strong> teacher did not fully understand <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceLearners’ performance varied from school to school and from task to task. Generally,learners did not do well in map-work calculati<strong>on</strong>s, or in source-based questi<strong>on</strong>s. AtThabasikwa learners generally showed better understanding.262
Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsIf <strong>on</strong>e assumes that each pen colour represents a level <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>, <strong>the</strong>re wasevidence <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> at all levels. However, <strong>the</strong> process was <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> m<strong>on</strong>itoring, ra<strong>the</strong>rthan moderati<strong>on</strong>. At some schools moderati<strong>on</strong> was evident in <strong>the</strong> teachers’ files, but not in<strong>the</strong> learners’.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice Learners had completed all seven tasks. There was evidence <strong>of</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at all levels. In Paper 2 and <strong>the</strong> map-work test, schools used different maps instead <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>e mapthroughout. Evidence <strong>of</strong> informal assessment and interventi<strong>on</strong> strategies was found in someschools.Areas for improvement Given <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> SBA, c<strong>on</strong>structive feedback should be given at all levels. Previous questi<strong>on</strong> papers can be used for informal assessment in order to preparelearners adequately for <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s. The quality <strong>of</strong> marking <strong>of</strong> learners’ tasks needs to be improved. Moderators should sign where <strong>the</strong>y have moderated, and indicate <strong>the</strong>ir designati<strong>on</strong>.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s The province needs to train educators in <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> quality tasks. Teachers should be discouraged from cutting and pasting out <strong>of</strong> previous questi<strong>on</strong>papers. There should be a focus <strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent training to empower teachers. Pre-moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> tasks will ensure <strong>the</strong>ir fairness and reliability. Officials involved in moderati<strong>on</strong> should give informative feedback to learners. Learners should be motivated to prepare <strong>the</strong>mselves for <strong>the</strong> formal assessment inorder to achieve good marks. The DBE’s <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> should be made available to <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderators.263
HISTORYPART 1:FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleTwo districts were invited for moderati<strong>on</strong>, with four schools from <strong>on</strong>e and five schools from<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r submitting files. One teacher’s file and three learners’ files from each schoolwere moderated. One school from Bojanala District was also included. Of <strong>the</strong>se, sixschools’ files had been moderated by <strong>the</strong> DBE. The DBE moderated <strong>the</strong> teacher’s file andthree to five learners’ files from each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> six schools. There was no way in which <strong>the</strong> DBEmoderati<strong>on</strong> could be identified, except from <strong>the</strong> date and <strong>the</strong> signature.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe instrument encompassed all aspects <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>. However, no completedinstrument was available during <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> sessi<strong>on</strong>.PART 2:VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE actual moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learners’ evidenceAt some schools <strong>the</strong> DBE moderators re-marked some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> evidence, while at <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rschools files were <strong>on</strong>ly checked for compliance with policy. Very few comments werefound, and <strong>the</strong>se focused mainly <strong>on</strong> criteria descriptors from <strong>the</strong> rubric. Norecommendati<strong>on</strong>s by <strong>the</strong> DBE moderator were found in <strong>the</strong> moderated sample.Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksNo discrepancies were found in <strong>the</strong> marking with rubrics. Different heritage assignmentswere set at each school. However, <strong>the</strong> rubrics for marking <strong>the</strong>se assignments were notcomplete, as some important criteria to be assessed had been left out. The rubric for <strong>the</strong>analytical essay was satisfactorily applied in most cases. A number <strong>of</strong> teachers did not use<strong>the</strong> holistic rubric in <strong>the</strong> essays where <strong>the</strong> learners had to use evidence from <strong>the</strong> sources toexplain and develop <strong>the</strong>ir line <strong>of</strong> argument, while in o<strong>the</strong>r schools <strong>the</strong> wr<strong>on</strong>g rubric wasused, and this reflected badly <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>. The allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks wasgenerally acceptable, although learners should be penalised for rewriting sources.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceLearners coped with <strong>the</strong> lower-order questi<strong>on</strong>s, but struggled with <strong>the</strong> higher-order <strong>on</strong>es.The ability to express <strong>the</strong>mselves in <strong>the</strong>ir sec<strong>on</strong>d/third language was a major challenge forlearners and <strong>the</strong>y needed assistance with <strong>the</strong> structuring <strong>of</strong> sentences and paragraphs.264
Although learners could write down informati<strong>on</strong>, <strong>the</strong>y struggled to take a stance and todefend or criticise it.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsA well-developed moderati<strong>on</strong> system was in place and moderati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s wereavailable in <strong>the</strong> files. However, <strong>the</strong>re was little evidence that tasks had been qualityassured at schools before being set. Script moderati<strong>on</strong> at all levels was not rigorousenough, and marks were <strong>of</strong>ten not adapted. This brought into questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> credibility andpurpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> process.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice The SBA process was managed appropriately. A provincial moderati<strong>on</strong> process was in place at various levels. The files were fairly complete and presented a picture <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> status <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> SBA inHistory in <strong>the</strong> province. SBA had been integrated into teaching and learning. The provincial trial examinati<strong>on</strong> papers were well developed.Areas for improvement The extensive use <strong>of</strong> previous questi<strong>on</strong> papers is a c<strong>on</strong>cern. There is little evidence <strong>of</strong> quality assurance <strong>of</strong> tasks. The process <strong>of</strong> script moderati<strong>on</strong> was not rigorous enough. All tasks should be labelled and include <strong>the</strong> relevant instructi<strong>on</strong>s. No remarks by teachers were found in <strong>the</strong> learners’ files. Calculati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> marks were <strong>of</strong>ten incorrect. The use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> SAG norms for cognitive levels should be adhered to. Guidance <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> heritage assignment as a provincial initiative needsattenti<strong>on</strong>.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s The appropriate quality <strong>of</strong> written tasks is a necessity. The moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> scripts at school level should be rigorous. The use <strong>of</strong> a uniform provincial recording sheet developed <strong>on</strong> Micros<strong>of</strong>t Office Excelshould be investigated. Teachers need to be guided in <strong>the</strong> setting <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> heritage assignment according to asingle key questi<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> applicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> an appropriate rubric to assess <strong>the</strong>seassignments. This also entails guidance <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> proper selecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> au<strong>the</strong>ntic andpers<strong>on</strong>al sources to address <strong>the</strong> formulated key questi<strong>on</strong>. The identificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> best practices is encouraged to support schools.265
LIFE ORIENTATIONPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleThree districts were pre-selected. Four schools were selected from Dr Kenneth KaundaDistrict, five from Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati, and <strong>on</strong>e from Bojanala District. It was notpossible to determine precisely how many files had been moderated by <strong>the</strong> DBE as <strong>the</strong>files were scattered and it was too laborious to go through <strong>the</strong> heaps <strong>of</strong> files in search <strong>of</strong>moderated files.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe DBE tool was comprehensive and addressed various moderati<strong>on</strong> criteria. Generally<strong>the</strong> DBE had moderated Task 1 and verified PE marks. In a limited number <strong>of</strong> files <strong>the</strong>examinati<strong>on</strong> task had also been moderated. No <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s or comments had been left by<strong>the</strong> DBE regarding <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> process. Different coloured pens had been used, but<strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> was not indicated so it was very c<strong>on</strong>fusing. The tool appeared tohave been applied c<strong>on</strong>sistently.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesIt was not clear what <strong>the</strong> DBE moderators’ brief was. The rigour and quality <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>was not equal in all districts and in some instances marks had been reduced drastically, by15, 17 and 23 marks in three cases. This was due to very lenient marking in Secti<strong>on</strong>s B andC. No feedback was given in <strong>the</strong> learners’ files. Both DBE moderators had reduced marks.Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksThe marking tool had been standardised at <strong>the</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al memo discussi<strong>on</strong>. It was not,however, strictly adhered to in Secti<strong>on</strong>s B and C and markers had awarded full marks foranswers that were <strong>on</strong>ly partly correct.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceThere were various levels <strong>of</strong> interpretati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> task. The requirements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>swere largely ignored. There seemed to have been an expectati<strong>on</strong> that questi<strong>on</strong>s would266
e based <strong>on</strong> general knowledge and not <strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent knowledge. Learners lacked criticalthinking skills.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsAt school level moderati<strong>on</strong> was scarce, though <strong>the</strong>re was some evidence <strong>of</strong> cluster andprovincial moderati<strong>on</strong>. Few files were subjected to various levels <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice Files were neatly organised. At three schools files had been subjected to various levels <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>. There was evidence <strong>of</strong> support at district level. The moderated learners’ marks appeared to be stabilising, and did not reveal <strong>the</strong>extreme performances <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> past.Areas for improvement There were irregular patterns <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>. It was difficult to identify moderated scripts. There was a lack <strong>of</strong> school-level moderati<strong>on</strong>. Moderati<strong>on</strong> tools were included, but<strong>the</strong>re was no physical evidence <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> in learners’ files. PE marks were still at unacceptable levels. Marking was inadequate, particularly where rubrics were used. It was clear that <strong>the</strong> teaching <strong>of</strong> Life Orientati<strong>on</strong> had been superficial.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>sThe questi<strong>on</strong> has to be asked whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> marks for SBA are a reliable reflecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> howlearners performed if <strong>the</strong> marks for <strong>the</strong> moderated files were reduced so drastically. The teachers need urgent interventi<strong>on</strong> with regard to marking and moderati<strong>on</strong>. Learners’ files must be exposed to different levels <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>. Clear marking and moderati<strong>on</strong> guidelines need to be developed by <strong>the</strong> DBE andmediated by provinces. It would be helpful to have <strong>the</strong> DBE-moderated files kept at <strong>the</strong> top <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> bundle t<strong>of</strong>acilitate <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> moderators’ task. School-level moderati<strong>on</strong> must be tightened up. PE marks must be realistic and c<strong>on</strong>stitute a true and h<strong>on</strong>est reflecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> learners’efforts. Training in quality marking and moderati<strong>on</strong> is required. Teachers must be trained in how to approach <strong>the</strong> teaching <strong>of</strong> Life Orientati<strong>on</strong>.WESTERN CAPE267
GEOGRAPHYPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleThe <strong>Umalusi</strong>/DBE requirements were met, that is, <strong>the</strong> files <strong>of</strong> 10 schools, five each fromeach <strong>of</strong> two districts, Metropolitan North and Metropolitan South. were provided.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsA copy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrument was not available, so no comment could bemade <strong>on</strong> its quality.VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesIn each batch <strong>of</strong> files from schools <strong>the</strong>re was evidence <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong>. Without accessto <strong>the</strong> instrument, however, it was not possible to express an opini<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> quality andstandard. Some marks had been adjusted, but no comments or recommendati<strong>on</strong>s werefound.Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksThe memorandum was neatly typed, accurate and user-friendly. Marking was c<strong>on</strong>sistentwith <strong>the</strong> marking tool, <strong>the</strong> memorandum was used accurately and effectively, and <strong>the</strong>mark allocati<strong>on</strong>s were fair.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceMany learners produced below average work in spite <strong>of</strong> thorough planning and structuresbeing in place.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsThere was evidence that learners’ work had been moderated at school and district level.Although <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was acceptable, <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence <strong>of</strong>feedback to learners. However, detailed feedback to teachers, HODs and principals wasmost helpful.268
Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was d<strong>on</strong>e at all levels, using appropriate moderati<strong>on</strong> tools ineach case. Feedback to educators was precise and relevant. Subject advisors had implemented innovative interventi<strong>on</strong>s. Individual schools had come up with good ideas for research and surveys. Learners had been given structure and guidance. There was a c<strong>on</strong>trol page that gave a good idea <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong>. Moderati<strong>on</strong> in this province/subject was well organised.Areas for improvement There was no feedback to learners. Learners need to improve study skills for a formal exam. Theoretical knowledge needs to be understood and retained. Applicati<strong>on</strong> needs to be practised. Map-work techniques and applicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory require drilling and practice. Analysis <strong>of</strong> exam performance for each individual would allow <strong>the</strong>m to identifyweaknesses and work <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>m. Educators should resp<strong>on</strong>d to moderati<strong>on</strong> inputs and show progress in <strong>the</strong>ir curriculumdelivery.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Learners need to improve study skills for a formal examinati<strong>on</strong>. Theoreticalknowledge must be understood and retained. The current actual moderati<strong>on</strong> tool used by <strong>the</strong> DBE should be made available. Educators need to take note <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> details <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s and comply withinstructi<strong>on</strong>s. The practical tasks should c<strong>on</strong>tinue to deal with challenges like <strong>the</strong> applicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong>ory, all calculati<strong>on</strong>s and GIS.269
LIFE ORIENTATIONPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleThe requirements were complied with, that is, five schools were drawn from each <strong>of</strong> twodistricts.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe instrument was appropriate. It addressed a number <strong>of</strong> aspects that are critical formoderati<strong>on</strong>, including policy, c<strong>on</strong>tent coverage, cognitive skills, assessed quality <strong>of</strong> tasks,language and bias, validity <strong>of</strong> tasks, technical criteria, usefulness <strong>of</strong> marking guidelinesand overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> tasks.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesDBE moderati<strong>on</strong> comprised <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d level <strong>of</strong> task moderati<strong>on</strong> and was found to havebeen d<strong>on</strong>e thoroughly. Clear comments were provided for each task and <strong>the</strong>secomments were developmental and indicative <strong>of</strong> what errors had been made.Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasks The layout <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper for Task 1 was not learner-friendly. Although <strong>the</strong> task hadbeen approved, <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>. Instructi<strong>on</strong>s to learners werenot clearly specified and were ambiguous. The task did not address <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent at<strong>the</strong> required level. The sec<strong>on</strong>d task was indicated as a research task. However, <strong>the</strong> learners’performance indicated that <strong>the</strong>y had not understood <strong>the</strong> task. The format <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> June paper was not in line with <strong>the</strong> current SAG document for LifeOrientati<strong>on</strong>. Learners were awarded full marks for writing incomplete answers. The marking tool (memorandum) did not always reflect <strong>the</strong> cognitive abilitydemands <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> rubrics seemed too generic at times. PET generallyreflected 100% attendance for all learners, implying that n<strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> learners hadbeen absent from school.270
Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceNot commented <strong>on</strong>.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsModerati<strong>on</strong>, in particular school moderati<strong>on</strong>, remained a major challenge. There was noevidence <strong>of</strong> pre-moderati<strong>on</strong> in almost all sampled tasks. No <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were available.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice Teachers’ files were well-arranged. There is a good support structure in <strong>the</strong> province, but <strong>the</strong>re are still many challengesto address.Areas for improvement At Saphumelela and Rosendal sec<strong>on</strong>dary schools most learners obtained high marksfor PET, but no rubric was included to indicate how marks were rewarded. Marks forPET were calculated incorrectly. At Intseben Ziswano and Phandulwazi, <strong>the</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> learners in terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>tasks indicated that <strong>the</strong>y did not understand <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent. All schools performed poorly in <strong>the</strong> DBE CAT.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s When designing a district task <strong>the</strong> instructi<strong>on</strong> must be free from ambiguity and <strong>the</strong>marking tools must be specific and comprehensive. When designing a task out <strong>of</strong> 75 (especially Tasks 1 and 2), it is important to ensurethat <strong>the</strong>re is a variety <strong>of</strong> forms <strong>of</strong> assessment, that <strong>the</strong> task is in accordance withGrade 12 level, that <strong>the</strong> weighting <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s is appropriate, that <strong>the</strong>integrati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> assessment standards is appropriate, and that <strong>the</strong> assessment tool isreliable. Assessment tools should be developed according to <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasks andshould be comprehensive in order to enable fair and accurate marking. Such toolsshould be quality assured at cluster, district or provincial level, depending <strong>on</strong>o where<strong>the</strong>y were set. The use <strong>of</strong> generic marking tools must be discouraged as <strong>the</strong>y do notaddress <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> a task. Higher-order questi<strong>on</strong>s should be included in all informal tasks/activities in order toprepare learners for formal assessment where <strong>the</strong>se questi<strong>on</strong>s carry a 30% weighting<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total mark allocati<strong>on</strong>. It is recommended that <strong>the</strong> district keep up <strong>the</strong> good practice <strong>of</strong> setting a comm<strong>on</strong>task as an example for teachers who still struggle with setting tasks and assessmenttools <strong>of</strong> an appropriate standard.271
The PET task assessment tool should be improved by giving clear descripti<strong>on</strong>s for <strong>the</strong>different levels and indicating <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> repetiti<strong>on</strong>s required for each activity inTask 2. Post-moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> tasks by means <strong>of</strong> re-marking should be addressed to ensure thattasks are properly re-marked, and not just shadow-marked, as <strong>the</strong> latter does notc<strong>on</strong>tribute to <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> process. As all <strong>the</strong> tasks are comm<strong>on</strong> tasks, memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s at all levels before <strong>the</strong>marking <strong>of</strong> tasks would enhance <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> marking across <strong>the</strong> province.MATHEMATICSPART 1: FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE MODERATED SAMPLESize <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderated sampleEach school from <strong>the</strong> two pre-selected districts, Metropole South and Metropole North,submitted between five and 20 files for moderati<strong>on</strong>.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrumentsThe DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> instrument was not available.PART 2: VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF LEARNERSMODERATED TASKS<strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DBE moderati<strong>on</strong> as evidenced in learners’ filesThe DBE tool was not available so c<strong>on</strong>sistency in its use could not be determined. Nocomments were visible in <strong>the</strong> files.Marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasksThe learners’ files <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> schools did not c<strong>on</strong>tain <strong>the</strong> trial examinati<strong>on</strong> answer scripts.The comm<strong>on</strong> task memorandum did not provide sufficient alternative answers andinvestigati<strong>on</strong> tasks were generally not suitable, although <strong>the</strong> assessment tasks were mostlyappropriate. Educators generally applied <strong>the</strong> marking tools appropriately andc<strong>on</strong>sistently.Overall impressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> learner performanceThe external moderator did not comment <strong>on</strong> this aspect.272
Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at school, cluster and district levelsThe recording and <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing <strong>of</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at <strong>the</strong> different levels <strong>of</strong> internalmoderati<strong>on</strong> were satisfactory, but dates had mostly not been indicated.Areas <strong>of</strong> good practice The system <strong>of</strong> district moderati<strong>on</strong> used in <strong>on</strong>e district was effective. The SBA tool provided by <strong>on</strong>e district was appropriate.Areas for improvement The cognitive levels <strong>of</strong> assessed tasks were not indicated. There were few Level 4questi<strong>on</strong>s. The late scheduling <strong>of</strong> provincial moderati<strong>on</strong> was a problem. The two districts appeared to be working independently. Educators appeared not to understand <strong>the</strong> requirements <strong>of</strong> investigati<strong>on</strong> tasks.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s More attenti<strong>on</strong> needs to be given to improving <strong>the</strong> assessment tasks, and toimplementing a system <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> before <strong>the</strong> tasks are set. A system <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>going provincial moderati<strong>on</strong> should be put in place.273
ADDENDUM 3APPROVAL OF FINAL MEMORANDA: MEMORANDUMDISCUSSION MEETINGS(To be read in c<strong>on</strong>juncti<strong>on</strong> with chapter 3 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> main <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>).3.1 PROCESS, PROCEDURES AND ATTENDANCESubjectAccountingAfrikaans HL P2Agricultural ManagementPracticesAgricultural Sciences P2Agricultural TechnologyBusiness StudiesCivil TechnologyComputer Applicati<strong>on</strong>sTechnology P1Computer Applicati<strong>on</strong>sTechnology P2C<strong>on</strong>sumer StudiesDance StudiesFindingsInnovative diagnostic methods were being put in place by <strong>the</strong> DBE toensure that <strong>the</strong> teaching and assessment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject in <strong>the</strong> PEDs wereimproved.The pre-memo discussi<strong>on</strong> meeting was very valuable.Two dummy scripts were prepared for practice marking which <strong>the</strong>delegates could take back to <strong>the</strong> provinces with <strong>the</strong>m.The selecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> scripts for practice marking was inappropriate.The Eastern Cape did not attend <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>. This was not <strong>the</strong> first time,and would seriously compromise <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> marking.Pre-marking was d<strong>on</strong>e.Only <strong>the</strong> Free State and KZN had received scripts to pre-mark.The paper was written <strong>on</strong> Friday and <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong> was held <strong>on</strong>M<strong>on</strong>day; hence, <strong>the</strong>re was no time to access scripts.Limpopo and Eastern Cape did not attend and this might seriouslycompromise <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir marking.The start was delayed because <strong>the</strong> DBE team <strong>on</strong>ly arrived in <strong>the</strong> afterno<strong>on</strong>.A pre-memo discussi<strong>on</strong> had been held <strong>the</strong> previous day.Not all chief markers could mark a sample due to <strong>the</strong> short period <strong>of</strong> timebetween <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>.Three internal moderators did not mark scripts – Gauteng, KZN and Limpopo.The rest marked a total <strong>of</strong> 70 scripts.Some chief markers marked as few as five scripts.The time between writing <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong> wastoo short, and it was difficult to get hold <strong>of</strong> scripts in time.The short period <strong>of</strong> time between writing <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> memodiscussi<strong>on</strong> was a challenge.The writing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong> were too closetoge<strong>the</strong>r to allow for any pre-marking.The discussi<strong>on</strong> was late in starting because all delegates had not beeninformed <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> venue.Not all chief markers attended.274
SubjectDramatic ArtsElectrical TechnologyEnglish FAL P1English FAL P3English HL P3English SAL P1 & P2Geography P2Hospitality StudiesInformati<strong>on</strong> Technology P1IsiNdebele FAL P1IsiNdebele FAL P2IsiNdebele HL P1IsiNdebele HL P2IsiNdebele SAL P2IsiXhosa FAL P1IsiXhosa HL P1IsiXhosa HL P2IsiZulu HL P2IsiZulu HL P3Life Sciences P1 V1FindingsEastern Cape, Limpopo and Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape did not attend <strong>the</strong> memodiscussi<strong>on</strong>.Training <strong>of</strong> chief markers was included in <strong>the</strong> programme.Holding <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> day after <strong>the</strong> subject had been writtencompromised <strong>the</strong> requirement that pre-marking be d<strong>on</strong>e. Only two chiefmarkers managed to do any pre-marking.There was little possibility <strong>of</strong> preparing for <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>.Mpumalanga did not hand in a provincial <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>.Practice marking was d<strong>on</strong>e.The internal moderator sent apologies as he was involved in <strong>the</strong> memodiscussi<strong>on</strong>s for EFAL.The fact that scripts for pre-marking were received so late seriouslycompromised <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>s.The provinces were not represented.No pre-marking had been d<strong>on</strong>e.The use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Rausch model analysis instrument has been introduced toanalyse results.Four provincial delegates had managed to pre-mark scripts.There was c<strong>on</strong>sensus that <strong>the</strong> practical examinati<strong>on</strong> was essential.Eastern Cape representatives did not attend.More time was needed for pre-marking between <strong>the</strong> writing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examand <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>.Only <strong>the</strong> chief marker had marked scripts.There were no representatives from different provinces, but <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>panel attended.In <strong>the</strong> practice marking sessi<strong>on</strong> it became clear that <strong>the</strong> chief marker fromLimpopo had not recorded or transferred <strong>the</strong> marks to <strong>the</strong> cover <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>script correctly.The chief marker from Mpumalanga had recorded and transferred <strong>the</strong>marks to <strong>the</strong> cover <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> script correctly.Limpopo representatives could not mark any scripts because <strong>the</strong>re was nomemorandum available.The discussi<strong>on</strong> was not attended by a representative <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> province inwhich <strong>the</strong> paper had been written.Only chief markers attendedSeven PEDs were represented.Eight provincial representatives had pre-marked scripts.The Free State representative had not received a memorandum so thatprovince’s c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> to <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> back could not be accepted.Limpopo, Mpumalanga and Free State did not submit written <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s. Thiswas a shortcoming.Six provincial delegates attended <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>.A pre-discussi<strong>on</strong> meeting was held.Training <strong>of</strong> chief markers was also d<strong>on</strong>e.275
SubjectLife Sciences P2 V1Life Sciences P1 & P2 V2Ma<strong>the</strong>matics P1Ma<strong>the</strong>matics P2Ma<strong>the</strong>matics P3Mechanical TechnologyMusic P1 & P2Physical Sciences P1 & P2Religi<strong>on</strong> Studies P1 & P2Sepedi FAL P1, P2 & P3Sepedi HL P1, P2 & P3Sepedi SAL P1 & P2Sesotho FAL P1Sesotho HL P1Setswana FAL P1Setswana FAL P2Setswana FAL P3Setswana HL P1Setswana HL P2FindingsA pre-discussi<strong>on</strong> meeting was held.Training <strong>of</strong> chief markers was also d<strong>on</strong>e.Pre-marking was not efficient. Some scripts were received from <strong>on</strong>e school<strong>on</strong>ly, o<strong>the</strong>rs not at all.The signed-<strong>of</strong>f versi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers and memoranda were notavailable at <strong>the</strong> venue.Some delegates received <strong>the</strong>ir scripts too late to do any pre-marking.At most six out <strong>of</strong> 18 delegates participated in discussi<strong>on</strong>s. The rest werepassive observers.The Eastern Cape representatives did not attend.Reports were handed in and scripts were marked by all except <strong>the</strong> EasternCape.Limpopo and Eastern Cape representatives did not attend <strong>the</strong> memodiscussi<strong>on</strong>s, and did not send apologies.All delegates had d<strong>on</strong>e some pre-marking, but <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence that<strong>the</strong>y had attempted to answer <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s or draw up a memorandum.Although <strong>the</strong>re were five days between writing and <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>,chief markers had not yet received scripts for pre-marking.Two provinces attended, i.e. Gauteng and Limpopo.It is not known whe<strong>the</strong>r Mpumalanga should still be attending.PEDs do not give <strong>the</strong>ir full cooperati<strong>on</strong> regarding <strong>the</strong> availability <strong>of</strong> scripts forpre-marking.Gauteng had not received <strong>the</strong> 2012 circular c<strong>on</strong>taining <strong>the</strong> markingguidelines.Circular E13 <strong>of</strong> 2011 c<strong>on</strong>taining marking guidelines had not been received inGauteng.Mpumalanga attended <strong>the</strong> HL discussi<strong>on</strong>s.Limpopo had no candidates.The internal moderator had to be excused as he was involved in <strong>the</strong> SALmemo discussi<strong>on</strong>s. The chief marker chaired <strong>the</strong> meeting.The DBE internal moderator did not attend due to ill health.There were no representatives from Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape or Limpopo.Marked scripts were presented by Gauteng, but <strong>the</strong>re was nothing fromNorth West.The Gauteng representative could not attend due to clashes with HL.No scripts were available, but North West made an input.No scripts were available, as <strong>the</strong> time between writing and <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>was too short.One province, Western Cape, did not attend, as usual.Only <strong>the</strong> internal moderator from Gauteng attended.There was an emphasis <strong>on</strong> maintaining <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> Setswana HL.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape, North West and Limpopo did not send representatives, butdid send apologies.276
SubjectSetswana HL P3Setswana SAL P2Siswati FAL P2Siswati FAL P3Siswati HL P1Siswati HL P2Siswati HL P3Siswati SAL P1Siswati SAL P2Tshivenda FAL P1Tshivenda FAL P2Tshivenda FAL P3Xits<strong>on</strong>ga FAL P1, P2 & P3Xits<strong>on</strong>ga HL P1, P2 & P3Xits<strong>on</strong>ga SAL P1 & P2FindingsWestern Cape, as usual, did not attend.Learners used informal language, <strong>the</strong> spoken variant, in <strong>the</strong>ir writing.Four provinces sent <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong>e representative each. This was said to be due tobudgetary c<strong>on</strong>straints.Not all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> representatives managed to mark scripts.No scripts were available, but North West made an input.Two/three discussi<strong>on</strong>s took place simultaneously so it was impossible toc<strong>on</strong>centrate <strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>e.The pre-memo discussi<strong>on</strong> meeting did not take place as <strong>the</strong> panel membersarrived late.The pre-memo discussi<strong>on</strong> meeting did not take place as <strong>the</strong> panel membersarrived late.No scripts were received for pre-markingN<strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> representatives attended.The panel discussed <strong>the</strong> papers.The same markers who marked HL also marked FAL.Mpumalanga did not attend <strong>the</strong> HL discussi<strong>on</strong>s.N<strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> representatives attended.The panel discussed <strong>the</strong> papers.3.2 QUALITATIVE ISSUESSubjectAccountingAfrikaans FAL P1Afrikaans FAL P2Afrikaans FAL P3FindingsMost changes had to do with clarificati<strong>on</strong> for <strong>the</strong> benefit <strong>of</strong> markers.The cognitive levels were not changed.The changes clarified <strong>the</strong> memorandum and made it more user-friendly.All changes were motivated and approved.All changes were motivated and approved.The changes had no effect <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper.There were many changes and additi<strong>on</strong>s.The changes were mostly intended to make <strong>the</strong> memorandum simpler formarkers to use.There was no change in cognitive level.There were no fixed answers for this paper. The marking guideline and <strong>the</strong>prescribed rubrics were signed <strong>of</strong>f and used.All changes were motivated and approved.277
SubjectAfrikaans HL P1Afrikaans HL P2Afrikaans HL P3Afrikaans SAL P1Afrikaans SAL P2Agricultural ManagementPracticesAgricultural Sciences P1Agricultural Sciences P2Agricultural TechnologyBusiness StudiesFindingsThe changes had no effect <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper.There was a very l<strong>on</strong>g list <strong>of</strong> changes.Most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m made provisi<strong>on</strong> for additi<strong>on</strong>al alternatives.All changes were motivated and approved.The additi<strong>on</strong>s or changes had no effect <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>questi<strong>on</strong>s.A l<strong>on</strong>g list <strong>of</strong> additi<strong>on</strong>s was provided.All additi<strong>on</strong>s were motivated and approved.The cognitive levels were not affected.There were no changes.It was emphasised that <strong>the</strong> pictures were <strong>on</strong>ly visual stimuli and candidatesdid not have to write about <strong>the</strong> pictures.There were several changes.Most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se made provisi<strong>on</strong> for additi<strong>on</strong>al alternative answers.All changes were motivated and approved.The changes had no effect <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels.Very few changes were made.All changes were motivated and approved.There was no change in <strong>the</strong> cognitive level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper.Changes were limited to <strong>the</strong> correctness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent and <strong>the</strong> proper use<strong>of</strong> agricultural sciences language. Proposals from provinces were taken intoaccount.All changes were motivated and approved.The changes had no effect <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper.Changes were mainly limited to <strong>the</strong> correctness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject c<strong>on</strong>tent and<strong>the</strong> proper use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> agricultural sciences language.All motivati<strong>on</strong>s from provinces were taken into account in reachingagreement.Correctness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject c<strong>on</strong>tent was not compromised by <strong>the</strong> decisi<strong>on</strong>s.All changes and additi<strong>on</strong>s were motivated and approved.The cognitive levels <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s were not affected.Many changes were noted, but <strong>the</strong>y were mostly additi<strong>on</strong>s.There were some correcti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> memorandum.The changes were all motivated and approved.The cognitive level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper was not influenced.The memorandum was streng<strong>the</strong>ned.The changes were mainly limited to <strong>the</strong> correctness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject c<strong>on</strong>tentand <strong>the</strong> proper use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject language.All changes were motivated and approved, and captured in detail.Changes and additi<strong>on</strong>s streng<strong>the</strong>ned <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> memorandum andreduced <strong>the</strong> risk <strong>of</strong> disadvantaging candidates.The cognitive levels were not affected.There were quite a few additi<strong>on</strong>s. This was mainly due to different textbooksbeing used in different provinces.278
SubjectCivil TechnologyComputer Applicati<strong>on</strong>sTechnology P1Computer Applicati<strong>on</strong>sTechnology P2C<strong>on</strong>sumer StudiesDance StudiesDesignDramatic ArtsElectrical TechnologyEngineering Graphics &Design P1Engineering Graphics &Design P2English FAL P1English FAL P3FindingsAll changes/additi<strong>on</strong>s were motivated and approved.Problems were caused by incorrect translati<strong>on</strong>s into Afrikaans, whichlowered <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels.There were no changes, <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>the</strong> additi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> alternative answers.All additi<strong>on</strong>s were motivated and approved.Cognitive levels were not affected.All changes were motivated and approved.Additi<strong>on</strong>s were made to accommodate alternative interpretati<strong>on</strong>s.Additi<strong>on</strong>al points <strong>of</strong> clarificati<strong>on</strong> for markers were included.Overall <strong>the</strong> changes did not make much difference to <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels.The changes enhanced <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> memorandum.The focus was <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> need not to disadvantage any candidates.All changes were motivated and approved.The cognitive levels were not affected.A few changes were made. Some were additi<strong>on</strong>al alternatives, while o<strong>the</strong>rsrelated to a slight change in mark distributi<strong>on</strong>.All changes were motivated and approved.The changes had no effect <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper.There were many changes, but most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m were alternative answers thatwere added.All changes were motivated and approved.The cognitive level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper as a whole was not affected.There were few changes, but <strong>the</strong>se served to make provisi<strong>on</strong> for alternativeand original answers.All changes were motivated and approved.The cognitive levels were not changed, but candidates were given greateropportunities to display <strong>the</strong>ir cognitive skills.No changes were made to <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> memorandum; however, anumber <strong>of</strong> notes were added for <strong>the</strong> markers.All changes were motivated and approved.The cognitive levels were not really affected.The changes mainly comprised additi<strong>on</strong>s.Learners were given <strong>the</strong> benefit <strong>of</strong> alternative answers.All changes were motivated and approved.No changes were made to <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s.The changes mainly comprised additi<strong>on</strong>s.Learners were given <strong>the</strong> benefit <strong>of</strong> alternative answers.All changes were motivated and approved.No changes were made to <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s.Syn<strong>on</strong>yms to answers were added.One quotati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> summary was divided into two.The cognitive levels were not affected.All changes were motivated and approved.No changes were made.279
SubjectEnglish HL P1 & 2English HL P3English SAL P1 & P2Geography P1Geography P2History P1& P2Hospitality StudiesInformati<strong>on</strong> Technology P1Informati<strong>on</strong> Technology P2FindingsThe comprehensi<strong>on</strong> secti<strong>on</strong> had been perceived as difficult and somelearners did not finish it.It was suggested that centres should not engage in “whole-paper” markingas this could disadvantage candidates.The changes that were accepted were mainly alternative answers whichenhanced <strong>the</strong> memorandum.There was a warning against leniency. The memorandum had to beadhered to.All changes were motivated and approved.Changes and additi<strong>on</strong>s were made in order to clarify <strong>the</strong> memorandumand to make provisi<strong>on</strong> for alternative interpretati<strong>on</strong>s.All changes were motivated and approved.No changes were made.Some diagrams were equally clear in all provinces.Alternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses were added.All additi<strong>on</strong>s were motivated and approved.The cognitive levels were not affected.The final effect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong> was to enhance <strong>the</strong> memorandum.All additi<strong>on</strong>s were motivated and approved.Additi<strong>on</strong>s were made to accommodate alternative answers.The cognitive levels were not affected.The amendments suggested in <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>s were debated and adoptedor discarded through general c<strong>on</strong>sensus.The accommodati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> changes and additi<strong>on</strong>s to <strong>the</strong> marking guidelines Itwas a fully collaborative process to.Various changes were made to <strong>the</strong> marking guidelines and included in <strong>the</strong>final marking guideline.The purpose <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong> adaptati<strong>on</strong>s was to streamline <strong>the</strong> marking guidelinesas well as to make sure that no candidate was advantaged ordisadvantaged.The changes and additi<strong>on</strong>s made to <strong>the</strong> marking guidelines were necessaryto accommodate all possible resp<strong>on</strong>ses from <strong>the</strong> candidates.The changes did not affect <strong>the</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels. Thechanges/additi<strong>on</strong>s all had to do with alternative relevant resp<strong>on</strong>ses to <strong>the</strong>same questi<strong>on</strong>.All changes were motivated and approved.Three minor changes were made, two <strong>of</strong> which were additi<strong>on</strong>al alternatives.All changes were motivated and approved.The cognitive levels were not changed.The Afrikaans translati<strong>on</strong> was slightly different and that compromised <strong>the</strong>answers to a few <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s. A decisi<strong>on</strong> was taken to accommodate<strong>the</strong>m.Changes were made to <strong>the</strong> memorandum, but <strong>on</strong>ly to clarify <strong>the</strong>interpretati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> memo.Additi<strong>on</strong>al alternatives were added.280
SubjectIsiNdebele FAL P1IsiNdebele FAL P2IsiNdebele FAL P3IsiNdebele HL P1IsiNdebele HL P2IsiNdebele HL P3IsiNdebele SAL P1IsiNdebele SAL P2IsiXhosa FAL P1FindingsAll changes were motivated and approved.The cognitive levels <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper were not affected.All changes were motivated and approved.Additi<strong>on</strong>s were made to accommodate alternative interpretati<strong>on</strong>s.Provisi<strong>on</strong> was made to accommodate <strong>on</strong>e ambiguous questi<strong>on</strong>.The effect <strong>of</strong> this was to <strong>the</strong> advantage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> candidates.The cognitive levels were not affected, but <strong>the</strong> memorandum wasimproved.All changes were motivated and approved.The additi<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>sisted <strong>of</strong> additi<strong>on</strong>al alternatives <strong>on</strong>ly.The cognitive levels were not affected, but <strong>the</strong> memorandum wasimproved.The impact was to <strong>the</strong> advantage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> candidates.All changes were motivated and approved.The changes <strong>on</strong>ly served to improve <strong>the</strong> memorandum.The cognitive levels were not affected, but <strong>the</strong> memorandum wasimproved.The impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> changes was to <strong>the</strong> advantage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> candidates.All changes were motivated and approved.The additi<strong>on</strong>s were in terms <strong>of</strong> additi<strong>on</strong>al alternatives <strong>on</strong>ly.The changes served to improve <strong>the</strong> memorandum.The cognitive levels were not affected, but <strong>the</strong> memorandum wasimproved.The impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> changes was to <strong>the</strong> advantage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> candidates.All changes were motivated and approved.There were some refinements which would be to <strong>the</strong> candidates’advantage.Some alternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses were added.The cognitive levels were not affected, but <strong>the</strong> memorandum wasimproved.The impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> changes was to <strong>the</strong> advantage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> candidates.The changes served to refine <strong>the</strong> marking.The cognitive levels were not affected, but <strong>the</strong> memorandum wasimproved.The impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> changes was to <strong>the</strong> advantage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> candidates.The changes served to refine <strong>the</strong> marking.The cognitive levels were not affected, but <strong>the</strong> memorandum wasimproved.The impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> changes was to <strong>the</strong> advantage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> candidatesThe cognitive levels were not affected, but <strong>the</strong> memorandum wasimproved.The impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> changes was to <strong>the</strong> advantage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> candidatesOnly alternative answers were added.Learners resp<strong>on</strong>ded to questi<strong>on</strong>s at various cognitive levels.281
SubjectIsiXhosa FAL P2IsiXhosa FAL P3IsiXhosa HL P1IsiXhosa HL P2IsiXhosa HL P3IsiXhosa SAL P1IsiXhosa SAL P2IsiZulu FAL P1IsiZulu HL P1IsiZulu HL P2IsiZulu HL P3IsiZulu SAL P2Life Sciences P1 V1Life Sciences P2 V1FindingsOnly alternative answers were added and <strong>on</strong>e correcti<strong>on</strong>.The additi<strong>on</strong>s would facilitate marking.No changes were made.Only alternatives were added.All changes were motivated and approved.Cognitive levels were not affected.Alternative answers were added.All changes were motivated and approved.Learners resp<strong>on</strong>ded to questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> various cognitive levels.Alternative answers were added to <strong>the</strong> advantage <strong>of</strong> learners.All changes were motivated and approved.Changes had no effect <strong>on</strong> cognitive levels.Alternative answers had to be added.Some errors <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> memorandum were corrected.Some changes were made.These changes were intended to facilitate marking.Learners would be able to answer at different cognitive levels.All changes were motivated and approved.There were no changes.Some changes were made, an error was corrected in <strong>the</strong> memorandum,and a few additi<strong>on</strong>al alternative answers were added.The changes were all motivated and approved.The changes did not affect <strong>the</strong> cognitive level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper.Most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> changes were in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> additi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> alternative answersSome clarificati<strong>on</strong> was needed for markers.The memorandum was improved.Cognitive levels were not affected.All changes were motivated and approved.No changes were made, but <strong>the</strong>re were some additi<strong>on</strong>s.The purpose was to clarify <strong>the</strong> memorandum for <strong>the</strong> benefit <strong>of</strong> markers.All additi<strong>on</strong>s were motivated and approved.They did not affect <strong>the</strong> cognitive level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper.Most learners avoided answering <strong>the</strong> topics linked to pictures.Some small changes to marking symbols were made.A few minor adjustments were made, mainly in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> alternativeanswers.All changes were motivated and approved.The changes had no impact <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s.The changes made were in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> additi<strong>on</strong>al alternatives.A translati<strong>on</strong> error resulted in a change in <strong>the</strong> allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> two marks.With <strong>the</strong> excepti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> above, cognitive levels were not affected.All changes were motivated and approvedMost changes made were in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> adding alternative answers.One editorial error invalidated a questi<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> marks for <strong>the</strong> entire282
SubjectLife Sciences P1 & P2 V2Ma<strong>the</strong>matical Literacy P1Ma<strong>the</strong>matical Literacy P2Ma<strong>the</strong>matics P1 & P2Ma<strong>the</strong>matics P3Mechanical TechnologyMusic P1Music P2Physical Sciences P1Physical Sciences P2Findingsquesti<strong>on</strong> had to be c<strong>on</strong>verted.One item had a slight impact <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive level, but o<strong>the</strong>rs not.All changes were motivated and approved.A fairly large number <strong>of</strong> changes were made, more in P1 than in P2. Thechanges were mostly in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> adding alternative answers and refining<strong>the</strong> memorandum.All changes were motivated and approved.In some open-ended questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels might have changedsomewhat.Q5.1.2 in <strong>the</strong> Afrikaans versi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper did not include reference to <strong>the</strong>directi<strong>on</strong> as in <strong>the</strong> English versi<strong>on</strong>. The Afrikaans memorandum was adjustedto show how this questi<strong>on</strong> needed to be marked so that <strong>the</strong> candidateswould not be disadvantaged.Changes made were in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> adding alternative answers.All changes were motivated and approved.The changes did not affect <strong>the</strong> cognitive level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper.Eight delegates submitted alternative soluti<strong>on</strong>s to some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s andsix <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m were approved and included in <strong>the</strong> final moderati<strong>on</strong>.All changes were motivated and approved.The changes did not affect <strong>the</strong> cognitive level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s.There were a great many changes. Most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> changes were <strong>the</strong> additi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> alternative answers and <strong>the</strong> clarificati<strong>on</strong> and refinement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>memorandum.There was no appreciable difference to <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>papers.Some changes were made; <strong>the</strong>se were mainly in terms <strong>of</strong> clarifying <strong>the</strong>memorandum.In <strong>on</strong>e or two cases <strong>the</strong> awarding <strong>of</strong> marks was adjusted.All changes were motivated and approved.The changes did not affect <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper.Changes were mainly in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> adding alternative answers.All changes were motivated and approved.These had little or no effect <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels.Changes did not affect <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels.All changes were motivated and approved.Changes did not affect <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels.All changes were motivated and approved.The changes were mostly to accommodate what learners were saying andto correct errors in <strong>the</strong> memorandum.All changes were motivated and approved.The changes had no effect <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s.The changes were mostly in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> additi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> alternatives, andrefinement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> memorandum.All changes were motivated and approved.These had no effect <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper.283
SubjectReligi<strong>on</strong> Studies P1 & P2Sepedi FAL P1, P2 & P3Sepedi HL P1, P2 & P3Sepedi SAL P1Sepedi SAL P2Sesotho FAL P1 & P2Sesotho FAL P3Sesotho HL P1Sesotho HL P2Sesotho HL P3Sesotho SAL P1Sesotho SAL P2Setswana FAL P1Setswana FAL P2Setswana FAL P3Setswana HL P1Setswana HL P2Setswana HL P3FindingsChanges and additi<strong>on</strong>s were made to accommodate different sourcesused in different provinces.Different religi<strong>on</strong>s also had to be catered for.Changes had no effect <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels.Only additi<strong>on</strong>al alternative answers were added, and <strong>on</strong>e change wasmade.These had no effect <strong>on</strong> cognitive levels.All changes were motivated and approved.Only alternative answers were added.In P3 a numbering error in <strong>the</strong> memo was corrected.These had no effect <strong>on</strong> cognitive levels.All additi<strong>on</strong>s were motivated and approved.Numbering <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> memo had become c<strong>on</strong>fused and had to be corrected.Only <strong>on</strong>e o<strong>the</strong>r error had to be corrected.No changes were made.Several changes were made, mainly to provide additi<strong>on</strong>al alternatives andto clarify <strong>the</strong> memo.All changes were motivated and approved.The cognitive levels <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper were not affected.No changes were made.Many changes were made, but most were <strong>the</strong> additi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> alternativeanswers and to improve <strong>the</strong> memorandum.In P3 <strong>the</strong> changes were mainly to clarify <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum andrubrics for markers.The rubrics were extensively edited and <strong>the</strong> descriptors were realigned toreflect competency levels.The changes were all motivated and approved.These had no effect <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper.The memorandum was made as inclusive as possible.All additi<strong>on</strong>s and/or changes were motivated and approved.These had no effect <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels.No changes were made.Only <strong>on</strong>e spelling mistake was corrected.Some changes were made.All changes were motivated and approved.Cognitive levels remained unchanged.No changes were made.A few changes were made.The changes were motivated and approved.Five changes were made.The changes were motivated and approved.There was no change to cognitive levels as most changes were actually in<strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> adding alternative answers.No changes were made.284
SubjectFindingsSetswana SAL P1No changes were made.Setswana SAL P2 Only <strong>on</strong>e correcti<strong>on</strong> had to be made in Secti<strong>on</strong> C.The change was motivated and approved.The cognitive levels remained unchanged.Siswati FAL P2A few additi<strong>on</strong>al alternatives were added.These did not affect <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels.The changes were motivated and approved.Siswati FAL P3No changes were mdae.Siswati HL P1A few correcti<strong>on</strong>s were made and some alternatives were added.Siswati HL P2These served to refine <strong>the</strong> memorandum, but did not affect <strong>the</strong> cognitivelevels.All changes were motivated and approved.Siswati HL P3No changes were made.Siswati SAL P1A few additi<strong>on</strong>al alternatives were added.These had no effect <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels.The changes were motivated and approvedSiswati SAL P2No changes were made.TourismMany additi<strong>on</strong>s and a few changes were made.Their purpose was to simplify <strong>the</strong> memorandum and make it more userfriendly.Also, to ensure that <strong>the</strong>re were alternative answers.All changes were motivated and approved.The changes did not affect <strong>the</strong> cognitive level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper.Tshivenda FAL P1Some small changes were made in <strong>the</strong> language secti<strong>on</strong>.These were to intended accommodate alternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses.The changes were motivated and approved.The changes had no effect <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels.Tshivenda FAL P2A change was made to <strong>the</strong> marking rubric.O<strong>the</strong>r small changes were made.The changes were motivated and approved.The changes had no effect <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels.Tshivenda FAL P3Two correcti<strong>on</strong>s were made and two words were added.These would facilitate marking.Cognitive levels were not affected.The changes were motivated and approved.Tshivenda HL P1Some additi<strong>on</strong>s were made (alternative answers).The marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> summary was changed, as per instructi<strong>on</strong> from <strong>the</strong> DBE.The changes were motivated and approved.Cognitive levels were not compromised.Tshivenda HL P2Some minor changes were made.There was a typing error in <strong>on</strong>e prescribed poem, and <strong>on</strong>e line was differentin three different publicati<strong>on</strong>s, which might c<strong>on</strong>fuse candidates. It wasdecided how to handle this.The changes were motivated and approved.285
SubjectTshivenda HL P3Tshivenda SAL P1Tshivenda SAL P2Xits<strong>on</strong>ga FAL P1Xits<strong>on</strong>ga FAL P2Xits<strong>on</strong>ga FAL P3Xits<strong>on</strong>ga HL P1Xits<strong>on</strong>ga HL P2Xits<strong>on</strong>ga HL P3Xits<strong>on</strong>ga SAL P1Xits<strong>on</strong>ga SAL P2FindingsThe cognitive levels were not affected.No changes were made.Four minor changes were made, mostly typing errors.The changes were motivated and approved.The cognitive levels were not affected.Only two changes were made.The changes were motivated and approved.The cognitive levels were not affected.No changes were made.The panel members reached c<strong>on</strong>sensus.A few minor changes were made after c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong> am<strong>on</strong>g panel membersand c<strong>on</strong>sensus had been reached.Changes were motivated and approved.The cognitive levels were not affected.No changes were made.Seven changes were made, all alternative answers.The changes were motivated and approved.These had no effect <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels.Only two changes were made; <strong>the</strong>se were minor additi<strong>on</strong>s.The changes were motivated and approved.Cognitive levels were not affected.There were no changes.3.3 AREAS/PROBLEMS THAT HAD NOT BEENAPPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED DURING THE SETTINGAND MODERATION PROCESSSubjectAfrikaans FAL P1Afrikaans FAL P2Afrikaans FAL P3Afrikaans SAL P1FindingsMore alternatives should have been added.A few questi<strong>on</strong>s could have been formulated more carefully to avoiddifferent interpretati<strong>on</strong>s.More care should be taken with <strong>the</strong> formulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s.More alternatives should be included in <strong>the</strong> memorandum.Some answers were not specific or detailed enough.Certain aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking grid needed clarificati<strong>on</strong>. This was d<strong>on</strong>e by<strong>the</strong> internal moderator.More alternatives should have been added.A few questi<strong>on</strong>s could have been formulated more carefully to avoid286
SubjectAfrikaans SAL P2Agricultural Sciences P1Agricultural Sciences P2Agricultural TechnologyBusiness StudiesComputer Applicati<strong>on</strong>sTechnology P1Computer Applicati<strong>on</strong>sTechnology P2C<strong>on</strong>sumer StudiesDesign Studies P1Electrical TechnologyFindingsdifferent interpretati<strong>on</strong>s.Certain aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking grid needed clarificati<strong>on</strong>. This was d<strong>on</strong>e by<strong>the</strong> internal moderator.It emerged that in some instances translati<strong>on</strong> from English to Afrikaansallowed for open-ended interpretati<strong>on</strong>s and possibilities <strong>of</strong> awarding ‘free’marks to Afrikaans candidates.Language issues were raised by some provinces. The language used shouldbe simplified in future.The unavailability <strong>of</strong> a prescribed textbook led to arguments as schoolsrelied <strong>on</strong> different resources for teaching and learning.A problem was experienced in aligning <strong>the</strong> essay questi<strong>on</strong>s in Secti<strong>on</strong> C with<strong>the</strong> alternative answers.The impact <strong>of</strong> translati<strong>on</strong> remains a problem. It had <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>of</strong> lowering<strong>the</strong> cognitive level <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> papers.DBE needs to develop an infallible procedure for handling <strong>the</strong> differentversi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers and data files.It should c<strong>on</strong>sider applying <strong>the</strong> principles <strong>of</strong> project management.The process <strong>of</strong> setting <strong>the</strong> paper should begin earlier in <strong>the</strong> year to avoidpressure at <strong>the</strong> end.Equipment has been replaced, but <strong>the</strong>re are still problems setting <strong>the</strong>paper. Perhaps <strong>the</strong> network itself is at fault.The panel must be provided with <strong>the</strong> resources <strong>the</strong>y require to produce apr<strong>of</strong>essi<strong>on</strong>al and error-free product.Provisi<strong>on</strong> has to be made for disabled learners. Blind learners could notanswer 40 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marks because <strong>the</strong> graphics could not be read.The memo needs to make provisi<strong>on</strong> for what to do when a form hasbecome corrupted due to problems with <strong>the</strong> computer set-up at <strong>the</strong>schools.Candidates’ CDs can sometimes not be opened because <strong>the</strong>y havebecome corrupted. A clear directive <strong>on</strong> how to deal with this situati<strong>on</strong>needs to be issued by <strong>the</strong> DBE.The remarks for P1 apply to this paper as well.It was noted that <strong>the</strong> illustrati<strong>on</strong>s were poorly reproduced in <strong>the</strong> Gautengquesti<strong>on</strong> paper.Discrepancies in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers in <strong>the</strong> provinces:The Eastern Cape questi<strong>on</strong> paper repeated a 5-mark questi<strong>on</strong> instead <strong>of</strong> a6-mark questi<strong>on</strong>. Q4.2.2 was repeated in place <strong>of</strong> Q4.4.1In <strong>the</strong> Western Cape an instructi<strong>on</strong> for a questi<strong>on</strong> was missing. Q2.5.2 did notstate: ‘Motivate your choice’.With <strong>the</strong> excepti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> colour-printing problem in Gauteng, <strong>the</strong>re wereno problems.The success <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking sessi<strong>on</strong> relies heavily <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> skills <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>markers. It is thus imperative that <strong>the</strong> Chief Marker and Internal Moderatorplay an active role in ensuring markers remain fresh and alert when marking.Resp<strong>on</strong>ses in Electrical Technology require learners to write sentences thatc<strong>on</strong>vey a proper expressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject matter.287
SubjectInformati<strong>on</strong> Technology P1IsiZulu SAL P2Ma<strong>the</strong>matics P1 & P2Physical Sciences P1Religi<strong>on</strong> Studies P1 & P2Sesotho SAL P1Siswati FAL P2Siswati FAL P3Siswati HL P1Siswati HL P2Siswati HL P3Siswati SAL P1Siswati SAL P2TourismTshivenda FAL P2FindingsThis requires that <strong>the</strong> reading and language skills <strong>of</strong> teachers in <strong>the</strong> subjectmust be at an appropriate level, taking <strong>the</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>ses required for freeresp<strong>on</strong>se answers into account as opposed to those <strong>of</strong> ma<strong>the</strong>maticallystructured answers.This places a huge burden <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> marker, who is expected to correctlyinterpret <strong>the</strong> intent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> learner and work out whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>se from<strong>the</strong> learner is acceptable.This requires that pers<strong>on</strong>s chosen to mark at this level should havedeveloped <strong>the</strong> necessary language pr<strong>of</strong>iciency.The Department needed to decide who would mark <strong>the</strong> Eastern Capepapers, as <strong>the</strong>se markers did not attend <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>, and thiswould have disadvantaged candidates.The examining panel needed to be enlarged. Currently three people had toset three practical papers in additi<strong>on</strong> to <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs.The PEDs failed to send representatives for SAL papers in spite <strong>of</strong> requests.They do not take this subject seriously, and <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> a memo discussi<strong>on</strong>will affect <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> marking.Provincial representatives complained that some unusual terminology hadappeared in <strong>the</strong> paper. This might have happened during editing.It was not known how learners would react to certain questi<strong>on</strong>s, as <strong>the</strong>rewere unknown variables that could affect <strong>the</strong> outcome <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking, e.g.<strong>the</strong> ability <strong>of</strong> learners and teachers, and c<strong>on</strong>tent coverage at <strong>the</strong> schoolA table to indicate <strong>the</strong> spread <strong>of</strong> religi<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers should infuture be included with <strong>the</strong> memorandum to ensure equitablerepresentati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> all religi<strong>on</strong>s.The mark allocati<strong>on</strong> for language in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> a summary needs to berec<strong>on</strong>sidered, as it may impact negatively <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> marking.Material and literary works for Siswati need to be developed, particularly forFAL.There were comments <strong>on</strong> Q6.2, to <strong>the</strong> effect that <strong>the</strong> mark allocati<strong>on</strong> shouldbe higher in order to advantage str<strong>on</strong>ger candidates.The marking rubric for <strong>the</strong> essay-type questi<strong>on</strong> was adjusted, and <strong>the</strong> markallocati<strong>on</strong> per points written was corrected.288
3.4 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONSAccountingComments: The meeting held <strong>the</strong> evening before <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong> was extremely helpful.The preparati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> dummy scripts for practice marking gave <strong>the</strong> examiners more work, butprovided excellent hands-<strong>on</strong> experience.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: The pre-memo discussi<strong>on</strong> meeting should be recommended for all subjects.Afrikaans FAL P1Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: Instructi<strong>on</strong>s relating to answering in full sentences should be refined. TheSAG should be refined regarding <strong>the</strong> summary.One l<strong>on</strong>g reading text should be replaced by two shorter <strong>on</strong>es.Candidates struggled to complete <strong>the</strong> paper in two hours.The questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> advertising techniques do not bel<strong>on</strong>g in <strong>the</strong> grammar secti<strong>on</strong>.Afrikaans FAL P2Comments: Provincial representatives indicated that <strong>the</strong> paper was fair but <strong>the</strong> languageusage was problematic.The rubric for <strong>the</strong> marking <strong>of</strong> essay-type questi<strong>on</strong>s originated from Home Language and doesnot always fit <strong>the</strong> marking <strong>of</strong> scripts in Additi<strong>on</strong>al Language.Lack <strong>of</strong> vocabulary leads to <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> words that do not exactly fit <strong>the</strong> meaning and that leadsto c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong> am<strong>on</strong>g markers.The paper is too l<strong>on</strong>g. 16 questi<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>fuse many candidates, causing <strong>the</strong>m to answerquesti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> books <strong>the</strong>y did not study during <strong>the</strong> year.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: Rec<strong>on</strong>sider <strong>the</strong> current prescribed works in <strong>the</strong> different genres because <strong>the</strong>nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> prescribed works is to a great extent alien to <strong>the</strong> world <strong>of</strong> experience <strong>of</strong> mostadditi<strong>on</strong>al language learners.The level <strong>of</strong> difficulty between genres and books within a specific genre is not comparable.Afrikaans FAL P3Comments: Internal moderators and chief markers complained about <strong>the</strong> short intervalbetween <strong>the</strong> exam date and this discussi<strong>on</strong>.Markers prefer marking P1 and P2 for financial reas<strong>on</strong>s.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: At least five working days should be allowed between <strong>the</strong> date <strong>of</strong> writingand <strong>the</strong> date <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>.The norm time for P3 should be extended.Afrikaans HL P1Comments: An analysis grid <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> different cognitive levels did not appear as part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>memorandum this year. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> chief markers and internal moderators do not form part <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> panel.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: Educators should avoid <strong>the</strong> old way <strong>of</strong> teaching (e.g. learning lists <strong>of</strong>f byheart and doing previous years exam papers) and ra<strong>the</strong>r focus <strong>on</strong> teaching <strong>the</strong> NCS.A workshop should be held with all <strong>the</strong> role players (as well as in provinces) to find comm<strong>on</strong>289
ground and familiarise everybody with <strong>the</strong> cognitive levels.Afrikaans HL P2Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: A suggesti<strong>on</strong>: Exam panels should be appointed l<strong>on</strong>g before <strong>the</strong> beginning<strong>of</strong> a new year so that <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> papers can be d<strong>on</strong>e as early as possible.Sample scripts sent by provinces should be representative in order to standardise properly. Theparticipants were not able to standardise certain questi<strong>on</strong>s (Novel: Vatmaar) because no scriptsc<strong>on</strong>taining answers to this questi<strong>on</strong> were submitted.Afrikaans HL P3Comments: Every year Afrikaans HL and FAL Paper 3 are scheduled to be written <strong>on</strong> a Fridayduring <strong>the</strong> afterno<strong>on</strong> sessi<strong>on</strong>. It is unfair <strong>on</strong> Afrikaans HL and FAL candidates to ask <strong>the</strong>m to writea creative paper <strong>on</strong> a Friday afterno<strong>on</strong>.The current rubrics from <strong>the</strong> DBE disadvantage candidates. The percentages <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> highestlevels are not a true reflecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a 100% performance.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: Please re-visit dates for <strong>the</strong> final examinati<strong>on</strong> 2013.Afrikaans SAL P1Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: In future instructi<strong>on</strong>s relating to answering in full sentences should berefined.The summary marking guidelines have to be refined.Afrikaans SAL P2Comments: The different aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> rubric should not be seen as separate and isolatedcategories, but ra<strong>the</strong>r as distinguishable aspects which should be used as tools to assessresp<strong>on</strong>ses as a whole.The marking rubrics need thorough rec<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong>, as aspects such as <strong>the</strong> assessment <strong>of</strong> lengthtransgressi<strong>on</strong>s cause c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>.The applicability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> current rubric for SAL is sometimes questi<strong>on</strong>able. Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> markingrubric has become imperative.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: The norm time should be extended as fewer and fewer markers apply tomark <strong>the</strong> writing paper.<strong>Umalusi</strong> should make <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marking available to <strong>the</strong> chief markersand internal moderators.Double marking remains <strong>the</strong> ideal for quality assurance.New markers need more assistance and guidance.SAL memo discussi<strong>on</strong>s should also take place over two days to allow for training.Agricultural Management PracticesComments: N<strong>on</strong>-attendance by <strong>the</strong> Eastern Cape could have a serious impact <strong>on</strong> marking.The Western Cape did not attend <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d day <strong>of</strong> practice marking.There was a complaint about Life Sciences being written <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> same day as AMP which mightdisadvantage learners taking both subjects.The translati<strong>on</strong> into Afrikaans remained a problem.290
Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: All provinces should send representatives to <strong>the</strong> memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s.Representatives should attend <strong>the</strong> full period <strong>of</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>.It was not fair that two subjects <strong>of</strong> this nature should be written <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> same day, and this shouldbe addressed in future.The time allocati<strong>on</strong> for <strong>the</strong> paper should be changed from 2½ to 3 hours.Afrikaans translati<strong>on</strong>s should be d<strong>on</strong>e pr<strong>of</strong>essi<strong>on</strong>ally.Agricultural Sciences P1Comments: It was noted that in Limpopo <strong>the</strong> label B in <strong>the</strong> diagram <strong>of</strong> Q3.2 was not clearlyvisible. This was due to <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> printing in <strong>the</strong> province. O<strong>the</strong>r provinces did not experiencea problem with this questi<strong>on</strong>.Q4.3.3 in <strong>the</strong> Afrikaans versi<strong>on</strong> was not <strong>the</strong> same in different provinces e.g. botbosluisuitbraak(Gauteng), b<strong>on</strong>tbosluisuitbraak (Mpumalanga)Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: The PEDs should assist in supplying <strong>the</strong> chief marker and internal moderatorwith scripts and memoranda in good time for pre-marking. This would help to improve <strong>the</strong>quality <strong>of</strong> inputs in <strong>the</strong> memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>.Agricultural Sciences P2Comments: There was a printing problem in North West which resulted in a poor quality graph.‘Cl<strong>on</strong>ing’ is not menti<strong>on</strong>ed in <strong>the</strong> SAG, <strong>on</strong>ly in <strong>the</strong> subject examinati<strong>on</strong> guidelines.Agricultural TechnologyComments: The dates for writing and <strong>the</strong> memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong> were too close to eacho<strong>the</strong>r.Arrows in diagrams tended to shift during printing.The Eastern Cape and Limpopo did not attend <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: Practical realities should be c<strong>on</strong>sidered when planning <strong>the</strong> memorandumdiscussi<strong>on</strong>s.Printers need to be very careful to avoid distorti<strong>on</strong> during printing.The absence <strong>of</strong> two provinces from <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong> should be addressed.Subjects like Agricultural Technology should c<strong>on</strong>sider collaborati<strong>on</strong> in marking by clusteringprovinces and creating <strong>on</strong>e venue. This would reduce subjectivity.Business StudiesComments: The inputs focused too much <strong>on</strong> weaker learners, although <strong>the</strong> paper was meant tocater for all learners across <strong>the</strong> spectrum. The focus was also <strong>on</strong> awarding as many marks aspossible, and not <strong>on</strong> analysing <strong>the</strong> learners’ answers for correctness.The 2011 paper had been unfairly criticised. The effect <strong>of</strong> too lenient marking and poor markinghad not been c<strong>on</strong>sidered.There were several errors that compromised <strong>the</strong> cognitive level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Afrikaans papers. Thechief marker blamed <strong>the</strong> editors, but five days had been allowed for checking by <strong>the</strong> chiefmarker and internal moderator. This has become an embarrassment to <strong>the</strong> external moderators.During discussi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>the</strong> panel was too dependent <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> external moderators.The panel relied too much <strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>e or two study guides for alternative answers.The panel was still grappling with <strong>the</strong> higher-order questi<strong>on</strong>s, and <strong>of</strong>ten it depended <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>291
external moderators to come up with proposals.Regarding <strong>the</strong> marking standards in different provinces, even though <strong>the</strong> marking notes arequite clear about <strong>the</strong> allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> part marks, this discussi<strong>on</strong> will come up again in <strong>the</strong> future.The fact that a poor example <strong>of</strong> scripts was provided delayed <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>s. It had to bereplaced <strong>the</strong> next day.There is still a noti<strong>on</strong> am<strong>on</strong>g delegates that original answers that do not appear in a textbookmust be wr<strong>on</strong>g.There are those who cling to textbooks, even though some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> informati<strong>on</strong> is incorrect orobsolete. This was a problem particularly when middle to higher-order comprehensi<strong>on</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>swere involved.It appeared that delegates had reached an agreement <strong>on</strong> how to mark certain questi<strong>on</strong>s, e.g.Q5. However, it was found that <strong>the</strong> CS1 headings were correct, but <strong>the</strong> informati<strong>on</strong> wasincorrect or mixed.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: The criticism <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 2011 questi<strong>on</strong> paper by <strong>the</strong> Director: Nati<strong>on</strong>alExaminati<strong>on</strong>s and Assessment needed to be investigated as three provinces had d<strong>on</strong>e very welland <strong>the</strong> rest below average. The questi<strong>on</strong> is whe<strong>the</strong>r moderati<strong>on</strong> was d<strong>on</strong>e c<strong>on</strong>sistently in allprovinces.Civil TechnologyComments: There was too little time between <strong>the</strong> writing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> exam and <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>to allow for written <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: It would be a good idea to allow a little more time in between.Computer Applicati<strong>on</strong>s Technology P1Comments: Not all s<strong>of</strong>tware programs required to set papers in formats according to <strong>the</strong>curriculum are available in <strong>the</strong> setting rooms.Chief markers and internal moderators have no input in <strong>the</strong> appointment <strong>of</strong> markers andcannot ensure that competent people are appointed as required by <strong>the</strong> DBE.Sometimes <strong>the</strong>re is no Afrikaans translati<strong>on</strong> for new English terminology and Afrikaans learnersare <strong>the</strong>n at a disadvantage.One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> images was not clear in <strong>the</strong> KZN paper, which affected <strong>the</strong> candidates’interpretati<strong>on</strong>.The readability level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper might disadvantage poor readers.There is not enough time between <strong>the</strong> writing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> exam and <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>. The result isthat markers come unprepared.People leave before <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sessi<strong>on</strong> due to flights that have been booked for 17:00, and<strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong> is scheduled to finish at 16:30. This is true even <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> bookings made for panelmembers by <strong>the</strong> DBE itself.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: The DBE must ensure that all this s<strong>of</strong>tware is available so that <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>scan be tested to eliminate errors.The teacher uni<strong>on</strong>s still have a major voice in who is appointed as markers. This is to <strong>the</strong>detriment <strong>of</strong> learners, as an incompetent marker cannot interpret answers.It would help if both English and Afrikaans versi<strong>on</strong>s could be supplied to candidates, with Englishand Afrikaans <strong>on</strong> facing pages.The provinces should apply quality c<strong>on</strong>trol to printing procedures.Word provides a grade reading level index which could be used to advantage by <strong>the</strong>examiners.292
At least five working days should be allowed between <strong>the</strong> two dates.The practical problem regarding bookings should be solved by <strong>the</strong> DBE so as to ensure that no<strong>on</strong>e leaves before <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>s.Computer Applicati<strong>on</strong>s Technology P2Comments: Competent markers are not always appointedThere was too little time between <strong>the</strong> writing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong> forpre-marking to be d<strong>on</strong>e effectively.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: The appointment <strong>of</strong> markers should be carefully m<strong>on</strong>itored by <strong>the</strong> DBE.Sufficient time should be allowed when planning <strong>the</strong> next timetable.C<strong>on</strong>sumer StudiesComments: The pre-memo discussi<strong>on</strong> meeting was very helpful.Dance StudiesComments: It is <strong>of</strong> great c<strong>on</strong>cern that <strong>the</strong>re were provinces that did not send delegates to <strong>the</strong>memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>.Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> chief markers are not dance instructors.The practical comp<strong>on</strong>ent, which counts 50% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marks, is not m<strong>on</strong>itored properly. There is noc<strong>on</strong>sistency and several discrepancies have been <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: Practicals and SBA should be moderated to ensure that all provincesmaintain high standards <strong>of</strong> performance and that <strong>the</strong> principles <strong>of</strong> integrity and credibility for<strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s required by <strong>the</strong> DBE are achieved.Design Studies P1Comments: There was a problem with <strong>the</strong> colour <strong>of</strong> Gauteng’s printing.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: The poor quality <strong>of</strong> printing in Gauteng will be addressed by <strong>the</strong> DBE.Dramatic ArtsRecommendati<strong>on</strong>s: A textbook selecti<strong>on</strong> panel should be c<strong>on</strong>stituted as so<strong>on</strong> as possible asprovinces have to place <strong>the</strong>ir orders.Final examinati<strong>on</strong>: It is requested that Dramatic Arts should not be timetabled with Languages.This places undue pressure <strong>on</strong> learners because <strong>the</strong> subjects require similar approaches.It is also requested that Dramatic Arts be positi<strong>on</strong>ed near <strong>the</strong> beginning <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>period and in <strong>the</strong> morning.An increase in <strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examining panel is required – <strong>the</strong>re are 15 prescribed texts tocover.293
Electrical TechnologyComments: Owing to <strong>the</strong> challenges experienced in <strong>the</strong> logistical arrangements around <strong>the</strong>venue, most pers<strong>on</strong>s who were supposed to attend, were not properly informed.Ano<strong>the</strong>r issue that should be taken cognisance <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns <strong>the</strong> time between <strong>the</strong> writingsessi<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong> meeting.When c<strong>on</strong>ducting memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s it is imperative that <strong>the</strong> whole exam panel must bepresent. The reas<strong>on</strong> for this is that different members set different parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paperaccording to <strong>the</strong>ir areas <strong>of</strong> expertise and it is unfair and unwise to exclude panel members as<strong>the</strong>y are crucial to providing <strong>the</strong>ir expertise during <strong>the</strong> preparati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> panel for <strong>the</strong>memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong> meeting.Marking and moderati<strong>on</strong>, being extremely subjective, rely heavily <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> interpretati<strong>on</strong> andapplicati<strong>on</strong> by <strong>the</strong> subject matter expert. If this is c<strong>on</strong>ducted in isolati<strong>on</strong> a myriad <strong>of</strong> directinterpretati<strong>on</strong>s will arise from marking sessi<strong>on</strong>s and <strong>the</strong> result will be that <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> markingwill be compromised. Moreover, if <strong>the</strong> chief marker and internal moderator <strong>of</strong> a province areexcluded from <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> costs, <strong>the</strong> integrity and reliability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> NSC are atstake.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: It is recommended that in future an appropriate c<strong>on</strong>tact list <strong>of</strong> stakeholdersis drawn up so that all can be involved.It is suggested that in future at least two to four days be allowed for <strong>the</strong> chief marker andinternal moderator to mark sample scripts, prepare alternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses and make a detailedanalysis. This would ensure that a more informed process could be followed, which would at <strong>the</strong>same time c<strong>on</strong>tribute meaningfully to <strong>the</strong> integrity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> process as a whole.Taking <strong>the</strong> credibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> process into account, it is recommended that both <strong>the</strong> chief markerand <strong>the</strong> internal moderator <strong>of</strong> every province participate in <strong>the</strong> indaba that precedes marking.Again, <strong>the</strong> more <strong>the</strong>se high-level stakeholders are involved in <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>the</strong> less <strong>the</strong>possibility <strong>of</strong> misinterpreting <strong>the</strong> memorandum and its intent.Alternatively it would be recommended that <strong>the</strong> marking and moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> smaller subjects,such as technical subjects, be centralised for <strong>the</strong> whole country and that this marking bemanaged and c<strong>on</strong>trolled by <strong>the</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al examinati<strong>on</strong> panel. In this way a smaller markingteam under <strong>the</strong> direct c<strong>on</strong>trol and management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> exam panel could work centrally, with<strong>the</strong> best markers from individual provinces being flown in. This would ensure a higher level <strong>of</strong>marking and moderati<strong>on</strong> and would facilitate standardisati<strong>on</strong>.English FAL P1Comments: Although representatives from <strong>the</strong> various provinces stated that <strong>the</strong> paper wasaccessible; it was found that learners’ performance indicated o<strong>the</strong>rwise.Although <strong>the</strong> memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong> was c<strong>on</strong>ducted thoroughly, possible alternative answerswere <strong>of</strong>fered by learners and <strong>the</strong> markers needed to use <strong>the</strong>ir discreti<strong>on</strong> advisedly. Having saidthis, <strong>the</strong> representatives must carry out particular instructi<strong>on</strong>s/recommendati<strong>on</strong>s that have beenapproved by <strong>the</strong> external moderators with regard to alternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: It is suggested that <strong>the</strong> following be inserted in <strong>the</strong> instructi<strong>on</strong>s in futurePaper 1: All answers must be in full sentences unless o<strong>the</strong>rwise stated.Classroom teaching, interventi<strong>on</strong> and support at school level are needed.Representatives from <strong>the</strong> various provinces need to be open-minded when marking <strong>the</strong>irprovince’s answer books.Some provincial internal moderators and chief markers need to develop <strong>the</strong>ir self-c<strong>on</strong>fidence if<strong>the</strong>y are to take charge <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir province’s marking processes.294
English FAL P3Comments: There was too little time between <strong>the</strong> date <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> exam and <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong> toallow for meaningful pre-marking.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: There is a need to revise and refine <strong>the</strong> creative writing rubric.An extra day or two are needed between <strong>the</strong> exam and <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong> to allow for premarking.English HL P2Comments: The literary essay memoranda are in far too much detail. While this helps <strong>the</strong> weakermarker, it also limits <strong>the</strong> answer to certain points.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: A new style <strong>of</strong> memo should be used, where <strong>on</strong>ly key points are given and<strong>the</strong> answers are more open-ended. This requires markers to have more knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> text.Geography P1Comments: There is still a problem with printing in some provinces.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: The DBE should do <strong>the</strong> printing centrally to c<strong>on</strong>trol <strong>the</strong> quality, or deploy <strong>the</strong>internal moderator to check <strong>the</strong> quality in <strong>the</strong> provinces.Geography P2Comments: The map was inaccurate, and actual features were recorded differently.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: Specificati<strong>on</strong>s for printing must be given, because if maps and diagramsare not clear <strong>the</strong>y influence <strong>the</strong> learners’ interpretati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s.The internal moderator should be in a positi<strong>on</strong> to visit <strong>the</strong> mapped area to verify that <strong>the</strong>descripti<strong>on</strong>s are valid.Hospitality StudiesRecommendati<strong>on</strong>: Minutes should be made available to delegates after <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>.Informati<strong>on</strong> Technology P1Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: The examining panel should be enlarged, so as to form <strong>on</strong>e team for Paper1 and ano<strong>the</strong>r for Paper 2.Questi<strong>on</strong> papers and memoranda should be sent to <strong>the</strong> chief markers and moderatorselectr<strong>on</strong>ically before <strong>the</strong> start <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>s.More time is needed between <strong>the</strong> writing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>s.IsiNdebele FAL P1Comments: Chief markers from <strong>the</strong> provinces did not have <strong>the</strong>ir scripts with <strong>the</strong>m.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: The chief markers from different provinces should bring <strong>the</strong>ir scripts with<strong>the</strong>m to <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>.IsiNdebele FAL P3Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: Some marking symbols were added for marking this questi<strong>on</strong> paper.295
IsiNdebele HL P1Comments: The Limpopo chief marker transferred marks to <strong>the</strong> cover incorrectly.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: The chief marker for Limpopo should make sure that <strong>the</strong> transfer <strong>of</strong> marks to<strong>the</strong> cover <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> script is d<strong>on</strong>e correctly.IsiNdebele HL P2Comments: Gauteng did not send a representative, and <strong>the</strong> Limpopo representative had notmarked any scripts.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: Attendance at <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong> is imperative, and chief markers ando<strong>the</strong>rs should be well prepared for <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>.IsiNdebele HL P3Comments: Candidates selected mainly Q1.1, 1.2 and 1.6. They obviously found <strong>the</strong>se mostunderstandable.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: Additi<strong>on</strong>al symbols for marking P3 should be added.IsiNdebele SAL P1Comments: The current system <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>ducting a memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong> has affected <strong>the</strong>credibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: The memo discussi<strong>on</strong> system should be revised.IsiNdebele SAL P2Comments: The current system <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>ducting a memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong> has affected <strong>the</strong>credibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: The memo discussi<strong>on</strong> system should be revised.IsiXhosa FAL P1Comments: The examinati<strong>on</strong> panel was not available for a pre-marking discussi<strong>on</strong> meeting.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: Dates for <strong>the</strong>se meetings ought to be published.IsiXhosa FAL P2Comments: The examinati<strong>on</strong> panel was not available for a pre-marking discussi<strong>on</strong> meeting.Questi<strong>on</strong> papers and marking guidelines were not ready for <strong>the</strong> meeting and this caused agreat deal <strong>of</strong> delay.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: These meetings should be arranged so that <strong>the</strong>y can be attended by <strong>the</strong>DBE panel.Logistical arrangements should be in place so that discussi<strong>on</strong>s are not delayed.IsiZulu FAL P1Comments: A limited number <strong>of</strong> representatives attended from <strong>the</strong> PEDs.The chief marker was c<strong>on</strong>cerned about <strong>the</strong> candidates’ ability to interpret visuals.296
It was a cause for c<strong>on</strong>cern that errors that had been corrected were still in <strong>the</strong> final paper.The chief markers should be given copies, not original scripts, to pre-mark.IsiZulu HL P1Comments: One instructi<strong>on</strong> in Secti<strong>on</strong> B was incorrect.IsiZulu HL P2Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: Memo discussi<strong>on</strong>s should be extended so that delegates are not pressurisedby having to catch flights.IsiZulu HL P3Comments: There was initially some inc<strong>on</strong>sistency in <strong>the</strong> awarding <strong>of</strong> marks.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: Candidates should not be expected to write a creative paper like P3 in <strong>the</strong>afterno<strong>on</strong>.IsiZulu SAL P2Comments: There were no representatives from <strong>the</strong> provinces.It was a grave cause for c<strong>on</strong>cern that errors that had been corrected still appeared in <strong>the</strong> finalquesti<strong>on</strong> paper.No bar-coded paper was provided for <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>.SAL was not recognised in <strong>the</strong> provinces, and <strong>the</strong>re was no support to get <strong>the</strong> chief markers toattend.Life Sciences P1 Versi<strong>on</strong> 1Comments: There was no printer at <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>, and this delayed <strong>the</strong> work somewhat.Life Sciences P2 Versi<strong>on</strong> 1Comments: The practice marking sessi<strong>on</strong> was very successful.Limpopo has appointed <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong>e internal moderator for four papers. This is bound to affect <strong>the</strong>quality <strong>of</strong> marking.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: The sample <strong>of</strong> scripts to be marked by each representative should be takenfrom different centres.Life Sciences P1 & P2 Versi<strong>on</strong> 2Comments: The fact that part-time candidates receive no tuiti<strong>on</strong> impacts negatively <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>irperformance.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: From discussi<strong>on</strong>s at this meeting it became clear that <strong>the</strong>re was a need forsome kind <strong>of</strong> forum, like <strong>the</strong> old QPA meetings, where LS teachers could talk about learning,teaching and assessment.297
Ma<strong>the</strong>matical Literacy P1& P2Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: A printer is needed in <strong>the</strong> room, or at least in <strong>the</strong> building, to facilitatespeedy printing. At <strong>the</strong> moment this aspect causes delays.Ma<strong>the</strong>matics P1 & P2Comments: There were wide complaints that <strong>Umalusi</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s had not reached <strong>the</strong> chief markersand internal moderators.The practice marking would go a l<strong>on</strong>g way towards standardising marking across <strong>the</strong> provinces.It was a very successful exercise.NB: There was a problem in Mpumalanga with Ma<strong>the</strong>matics P2 where part <strong>of</strong> a diagram hadnot been printed. The DBE insisted that <strong>the</strong>y had sent a hard copy to <strong>the</strong> provinces as well,precisely to prevent a situati<strong>on</strong> like this, and it may have been that <strong>the</strong> copies were notcompared. After a l<strong>on</strong>g discussi<strong>on</strong> with <strong>the</strong> full meeting, it was decided that candidates mayhave been prejudiced by 11 marks as a c<strong>on</strong>sequence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> omissi<strong>on</strong>.It was decided that Q6.4, 6.7, 6.8 and 6.9 should not be marked by <strong>the</strong> province, and that marksshould be calculated out <strong>of</strong> 139. The decisi<strong>on</strong> would lean slightly towards advantaging <strong>the</strong>candidates, but this was fair as <strong>the</strong>ir c<strong>on</strong>fidence would have been influenced negatively by <strong>the</strong>situati<strong>on</strong>.The province indicated that <strong>the</strong> file was not compatible with <strong>the</strong>ir program, but it was sent as aprint-ready file and <strong>the</strong>re should have been no need to c<strong>on</strong>vert it. The typist indicated that <strong>the</strong>diagrams were saved as packages and could not have been changed unless some<strong>on</strong>e hadattempted to tamper with <strong>the</strong>m.Ma<strong>the</strong>matics P3Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: Teachers need more training <strong>on</strong> probability and geometry to improveteaching.Mechanical TechnologyComments: Many learners are not taking Ma<strong>the</strong>matics but Ma<strong>the</strong>matical Literacy. It <strong>the</strong>reforeseems that <strong>the</strong>y have problems with <strong>the</strong> manipulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> formulae.Learners do not know how to interpret <strong>the</strong> mechanical drawings that were used to define somequesti<strong>on</strong>s. There is no standard textbook for Mechanical Technology.Teaching and learning support material (LTSM) is a cause for c<strong>on</strong>cern: <strong>the</strong>re is a shortage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>LTSM and resources needed to teach <strong>the</strong> curriculum to defined standards.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: Teachers need capacity building in <strong>the</strong> new programs. This was reiteratedby <strong>the</strong> DBE curriculum representative.Physical Sciences P1Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: Provinces should have all teaching and moderati<strong>on</strong> in place to givecandidates <strong>the</strong> best chance to pass <strong>the</strong> subject.Learners should be pre-tested to determine <strong>the</strong>ir readiness to write <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> beforebeing allowed to enter for <strong>the</strong> final examinati<strong>on</strong>.Q7 had an error <strong>on</strong>ly in Gauteng and <strong>the</strong> Western Cape, where “width” was replaced with“with”. Unwarranted provincial editor interference? It should be investigated whe<strong>the</strong>r learnerswere disadvantaged in <strong>the</strong> process.298
Physical Sciences P2Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: Equivalent answers should not be marked wr<strong>on</strong>g because <strong>the</strong>y are notworded precisely as in <strong>the</strong> memorandum.In <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> any uncertainty <strong>the</strong> external moderators should be c<strong>on</strong>tacted.The memorandum should not be changed at <strong>the</strong> marking centres.Religi<strong>on</strong> Studies P1 & P2Comments and recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: More time should be allowed for memo discussi<strong>on</strong>s,including pre-memo discussi<strong>on</strong>s. Pre-memo discussi<strong>on</strong>s did not take place <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> 25th asplanned.A table to indicate <strong>the</strong> spread <strong>of</strong> religi<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper should be included in <strong>the</strong>moderati<strong>on</strong> submissi<strong>on</strong>.Booking <strong>the</strong> flight back <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> day <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>s meant that <strong>on</strong>e moderator had to leave in<strong>the</strong> early afterno<strong>on</strong>.Better coordinati<strong>on</strong> and cooperati<strong>on</strong> is required from <strong>the</strong> DBE. The March papers were <strong>on</strong>lysigned <strong>of</strong>f <strong>on</strong> 26 November 2012, <strong>the</strong> day <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s!Sepedi FAL P1, P2 & P3Comments: There are serious c<strong>on</strong>cerns about how <strong>the</strong> 20 pre-memo discussi<strong>on</strong> scripts arehandled. Mpumalanga does not make scripts available to chief markers and it is not knownwhe<strong>the</strong>r Mpumalanga is still writing this subject.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: The procedure needs to be standardised. If <strong>the</strong> subject is still being writtenin Mpumalanga, <strong>the</strong> marking will have to be closely m<strong>on</strong>itored to ensure that <strong>the</strong> markersimplement <strong>the</strong> adapted memorandum.Sepedi HL P1, P2 & P3Comments: There are serious c<strong>on</strong>cerns about <strong>the</strong> way <strong>the</strong> 20 pre-memo discussi<strong>on</strong> scripts arehandled.Mpumalanga does not make scripts available to chief markers.Gauteng did not cooperate or make scripts available for pre-marking.The learners in <strong>the</strong> available sample performed very poorly.The reas<strong>on</strong> appeared to be poor teaching.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: The marking in Gauteng should be closely m<strong>on</strong>itored to ensure that <strong>the</strong>correct memorandum is used.An upward adjustment <strong>of</strong> marks may be necessary.Sepedi SAL P1& P2Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: It is recommended that an investigati<strong>on</strong> be c<strong>on</strong>ducted into why SAL is notregistered in Sepedi as in o<strong>the</strong>r languages.299
Sesotho FAL P1, P2 & P3Comments: The time allowed for <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong> was too short.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: It would be appreciated if more time for <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong> could bemade available.Sesotho HL P1Recommendati<strong>on</strong>: Memo discussi<strong>on</strong>s should be attended by all provinces.Sesotho HL P2 &P3Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: The initial marking <strong>of</strong> scripts should be extended to include <strong>the</strong> DBE paneland external moderators to broaden <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>.Training <strong>of</strong> chief markers and internal moderators in marking should be extended to AfricanLanguages.Sesotho SAL P1 & P2Comments: The fact that all <strong>the</strong> language levels were discussed <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> same date and in <strong>the</strong>same time slots created a lot <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> teams had to split in order to ensure that <strong>the</strong>two sessi<strong>on</strong>s progressed c<strong>on</strong>currently.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: It would be greatly appreciated if <strong>the</strong> durati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> this meeting could bescheduled for two days, as is <strong>the</strong> case with o<strong>the</strong>r languages such as English and Afrikaans.Setswana FAL P1, P2 & P3Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: Photocopies <strong>of</strong> marked scripts should be brought to <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>,not <strong>the</strong> originals.It is recommended that representatives from <strong>the</strong> provinces attend this discussi<strong>on</strong>.Setswana HL P1& P2Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: All provinces where this language is taught should send representatives to<strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>.Siswati FAL P1, P2 & P3, HL P1, P2 & P3, SAL P1 & P2Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: It is str<strong>on</strong>gly recommended that all <strong>the</strong> Siswati P1, P2 and P3 discussi<strong>on</strong>s notbe held simultaneously. When <strong>on</strong>e is resp<strong>on</strong>sible for all three/both it becomes an impossible task.Material for <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>s should be ready when <strong>the</strong> representatives arrive.TourismComments: The English terminology is <strong>of</strong>ten used in <strong>the</strong> classroom, and it would be to learners’advantage to have both <strong>the</strong> English and Afrikaans versi<strong>on</strong>s available.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: It is suggested that <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper be made available to candidates inboth English and Afrikaans.300
Tshivenda FAL P1Comments: There was a problem with <strong>the</strong> printer throughout <strong>the</strong> Tshivenda memorandumdiscussi<strong>on</strong>, as it did not have <strong>the</strong> capacity to print <strong>the</strong> Venda language. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> provincialrepresentatives did not come well prepared, and had illegible memos.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: It is recommended that a sample <strong>of</strong> scripts be marked prior to <strong>the</strong>memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong> as this would inform <strong>the</strong> changes made according to resp<strong>on</strong>ses from<strong>the</strong> learners’ scripts.Tshivenda FAL P2Comments: A sample <strong>of</strong> marked scripts shows <strong>the</strong> panel what <strong>the</strong> performance was like andwhich questi<strong>on</strong>s were more challenging to learners. Providing alternative answers helpsaccommodate all learners.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: In future <strong>the</strong> DBE should ensure that all provincial representatives receivescripts before coming to <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong> venue.Xits<strong>on</strong>ga FAL P1 & P2 & P3Comments: No provincial representatives attended, as all memo discussi<strong>on</strong>s in Xits<strong>on</strong>ga wereheld simultaneously and all representatives opted to attend HL.Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s: It would be a good idea to place all <strong>the</strong> Xits<strong>on</strong>ga levels at <strong>on</strong>e venue. Thiswould make it possible to c<strong>on</strong>sult with chief markers and internal moderators. As <strong>the</strong>re were fewFAL candidates, <strong>the</strong> representatives preferred to attend HL.The chairpers<strong>on</strong> emphasised <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> pre-marking, even at <strong>the</strong> marking centre, toachieve comparable standards <strong>of</strong> marking.Xits<strong>on</strong>ga HL P2Comments: Some candidates did not prepare for <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>. They did not even know <strong>the</strong>names <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> characters in <strong>the</strong> setworks.Xits<strong>on</strong>ga SAL P1 & P2Recommendati<strong>on</strong>: It would be a good idea to place all <strong>the</strong> Xits<strong>on</strong>ga levels at <strong>on</strong>e venue. Thiswould make it possible to c<strong>on</strong>sult with chief markers and internal moderators. As <strong>the</strong>re were fewFAL candidates <strong>the</strong> representatives preferred to attend HL.The chairpers<strong>on</strong> emphasised <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> pre-marking, even at <strong>the</strong> marking centre, toachieve comparable standards <strong>of</strong> marking.301
ADDENDUM 4VERIFICATION OF MARKING(To be read in c<strong>on</strong>juncti<strong>on</strong> with chapter 4 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> main <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>)1 ACCOUNTING1.1 Adherence to <strong>the</strong> marking memorandumThe marking memoranda were adhered to during marking. Alternatives had been addedto <strong>the</strong> memoranda during <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>. The practice marking and training at <strong>the</strong>memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong> over <strong>the</strong> past four years has c<strong>on</strong>tributed to <strong>the</strong> high standard <strong>of</strong>marking in <strong>the</strong> country at present. A subsequent document sent to provinces served toclarify <strong>the</strong> memo and not to change it.1.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyThere was moderate c<strong>on</strong>sistency in <strong>the</strong> allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks and <strong>the</strong> recording <strong>of</strong> resultswas relatively accurate. Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> took care <strong>of</strong> most discrepancies and <strong>the</strong>examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants checked carefully for any errors in <strong>the</strong> recording <strong>of</strong> marks.1.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingAverage to goodAccounting (Eastern Cape, <strong>on</strong> site): There were some discrepancies but as this was <strong>the</strong> firstday <strong>of</strong> marking, <strong>the</strong>se problems would be sorted out.1.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>There was evidence <strong>of</strong> sufficient internal moderati<strong>on</strong> being d<strong>on</strong>e. Errors were picked upand corrected.Accounting (Eastern Cape, <strong>on</strong> site): As it was early in <strong>the</strong> marking sessi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>the</strong>re were n<strong>of</strong>ully moderated batches.302
1.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sQuesti<strong>on</strong>s were all fair and pitched at <strong>the</strong> appropriate cognitive levels.1.6 Candidates’ performanceGenerally, candidates found <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers to be fair, although <strong>the</strong>ir performancewas variable, from very poor to very good.Accounting (Eastern Cape, Gauteng and Limpopo <strong>on</strong> site): Many candidates had notattempted all <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s.1.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sInternal moderati<strong>on</strong> was fair.Markers had difficulty awarding method marks and penalising <strong>the</strong> inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> foreignitems, but <strong>the</strong>y were improving. They also had difficulty interpreting answers in words o<strong>the</strong>rthan those in <strong>the</strong> memorandum.Candidates were found to be still experiencing problems resp<strong>on</strong>ding to ratio and analysistypequesti<strong>on</strong>s.Suggesti<strong>on</strong>s:The current examinati<strong>on</strong> panel should be retained as it was doing good work and <strong>the</strong>paper was improving.1.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksRaw marks. The questi<strong>on</strong> papers were fair and any discrepancies in marking were notsignificant enough to warrant an adjustment <strong>of</strong> marks.Amount <strong>of</strong> external moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>e in AccountingProvincePaperNo <strong>of</strong> scriptsTime spent <strong>on</strong> eachreceived moderated script (min)Eastern Cape 26 26 19Gauteng 24 24 22Limpopo 28 28 18Details not provided for centralised moderati<strong>on</strong>.303
2 AFRIKAANS FAL PAPERS 1, 2 AND 3On site2.1 Adherence to <strong>the</strong> marking memorandumThe marking memoranda and rubrics (P3) were adhered to. All possible alternatives hadbeen discussed and added at <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>.However, this was not applicable to P3, as answers were not provided, <strong>on</strong>ly guidelines.2.1.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyMarking <strong>of</strong> both papers was accurate and c<strong>on</strong>sistent. There were no changes to <strong>the</strong>marking memorandum at <strong>the</strong> marking centre. It was clear that <strong>the</strong> training <strong>of</strong> chiefmarkers and internal moderators, and <strong>the</strong> thorough memo discussi<strong>on</strong>s had raised <strong>the</strong>standards <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracy.KwaZulu-Natal (<strong>on</strong> site): There were a few discrepancies in P3, mostly in <strong>the</strong> order <strong>of</strong> 3 to 4marks. In extreme <strong>the</strong> cases <strong>the</strong> range was between –8 and +12.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape (<strong>on</strong> site): There were a few discrepancies in P3, mostly in <strong>the</strong> order <strong>of</strong> 3 to 4marks. In extreme <strong>the</strong> cases <strong>the</strong> range was between –7 and +10.2.1.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingThe quality and standard <strong>of</strong> marking were rated as “good” to “very good” in terms <strong>of</strong>mark allocati<strong>on</strong>, interpretati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> candidates’ resp<strong>on</strong>ses, applicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> rubrics, andtotalling <strong>of</strong> marks.KwaZulu-Natal, Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape (<strong>on</strong> site): Not all errors were indicated in P3.2.1.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was very good, although <strong>the</strong>re were few scripts in <strong>the</strong> sample thathad not been through at least <strong>on</strong>e level <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>. Where adjustments were required<strong>the</strong>se had been d<strong>on</strong>e. Internal moderators are commended <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir good work.304
2.1.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sThere were no unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s, although candidates had difficulty with some questi<strong>on</strong>s,and misinterpreted some topics.2.1.6 Candidates’ performanceCandidates found <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers “difficult” (KwaZulu-Natal). Accordingly, <strong>the</strong>yperformed poorly, with many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m achieving below 40%, and many in <strong>the</strong> 0 to 29%range. In o<strong>the</strong>r provinces <strong>the</strong> paper was found to be fair.P3: Generally, a lack <strong>of</strong> vocabulary and limited knowledge <strong>of</strong> grammatical structuresinhibited <strong>the</strong> expressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> candidates’ thoughts.2.1.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sThere was sufficient evidence <strong>of</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at all levels, and no evidence <strong>of</strong>shadow-marking. A high degree <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sistency was maintained in marking and internalmoderati<strong>on</strong>.It was suggested that when selecting texts for setting questi<strong>on</strong> papers, greater cognisanceshould be taken <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>se are first additi<strong>on</strong>al language learners. Accordingly,vocabulary should be appropriate and <strong>the</strong>re should be fewer texts in Secti<strong>on</strong> C.Straightforward topics should be set in P3.In <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> P3, candidates’ resp<strong>on</strong>ses are assessed by means <strong>of</strong> three rubrics andaccompanying guidelines – and not by means <strong>of</strong> a memorandum.Secti<strong>on</strong>-by-secti<strong>on</strong> marking was implemented, and this c<strong>on</strong>tributed to <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sistency inmarking.The importance <strong>of</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>s cannot be over-emphasised, as <strong>the</strong> benefits <strong>of</strong>pr<strong>of</strong>essi<strong>on</strong>ally c<strong>on</strong>ducted memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s and training are now being reaped.Provincial standardisati<strong>on</strong> is also taking place, and this is perhaps making <strong>the</strong> biggestc<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> to <strong>the</strong> improved standard <strong>of</strong> marking.Submissi<strong>on</strong>: Rubrics.The interpretati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a rubric, where marks are grouped in codes and where <strong>the</strong>descriptors <strong>of</strong> codes are <strong>of</strong>ten vague and tend to overlap, can lead to marks beingawarded subjectively. It is <strong>the</strong>refore imperative that a system <strong>of</strong> double marking be305
adopted by all provinces for P3, to counter <strong>the</strong> element <strong>of</strong> subjectivity and to ensure thatstandards are maintained in a uniform way.The external moderators are <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> opini<strong>on</strong> that <strong>the</strong> current rubrics need to be reviewedfur<strong>the</strong>r with regard to <strong>the</strong> clarity <strong>of</strong> descriptors and <strong>the</strong> weighting <strong>of</strong> marks for <strong>the</strong> structureelements. We appeal to <strong>Umalusi</strong> to intervene and ensure that a more appropriate tool isdeveloped.Norm time: The current norm time <strong>of</strong> 18 minutes should be extended. This is a two-hour, 80-mark questi<strong>on</strong> paper.2.1.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksRaw marks. The paper and <strong>the</strong> marking were fair and some candidates in <strong>the</strong> samplesdem<strong>on</strong>strated an ability to do well.Amount <strong>of</strong> external moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>eTime spent <strong>on</strong> eachNo <strong>of</strong> scriptsProvincePaperscript (min)received moderatedKwaZulu-Natal 1 20 203 12 20Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape 3 30 20Centralised: Six scripts per paper per assessment body3 AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES PAPERS 1 AND 23.1 Adherence to <strong>the</strong> marking memorandumThe marking memorandum was adhered to, and it made provisi<strong>on</strong> for candidates toanswer in <strong>the</strong>ir own words. Provisi<strong>on</strong> had also been made for alternative answers.3.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyThere was c<strong>on</strong>sistency in most cases and errors were identified and corrected. Nochanges were made to <strong>the</strong> memorandum at <strong>the</strong> marking centre.306
3.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingThe standard and quality <strong>of</strong> marking was good and <strong>the</strong>re was an acceptable level <strong>of</strong>accuracy. Correct totals were recorded. A few errors were found which were correctedduring moderati<strong>on</strong>.3.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>Errors in marking were corrected in internal moderati<strong>on</strong> process.3.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sThere were no unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s.3.6 Candidates’ performanceCandidate’s performance was fair. All questi<strong>on</strong>s were attempted by all candidates,although Q2, 3 and 4 in papers 1 and 2 were found to be difficult.3.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sInternal moderati<strong>on</strong> was well d<strong>on</strong>e. It is very important that markers be well trained.3.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksRaw marks. The paper and <strong>the</strong> marking were fair.Amount <strong>of</strong> external moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>eProvincePaperNo <strong>of</strong> scriptsTime spent <strong>on</strong> eachreceived moderated script (min)Eastern Cape 1 20 20 18Gauteng 20 20 18Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape 20 20 15Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape 2 20 20 15307
4 BUSINESS STUDIES4.1 Adherence to marking memorandumThe marking memorandum was as approved by <strong>the</strong> external moderator.4.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyThe overall marking was c<strong>on</strong>sistent and accurate.NB: Novice markers needed more training.4.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingThe quality and standard <strong>of</strong> marking were good. The few anomalies that were found werenot significant in <strong>the</strong> l<strong>on</strong>g run.NB: Not all markers were marking accurately. Novice markers need more training.4.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>Both <strong>the</strong> internal and external moderators showed an average increase. However, <strong>the</strong>discrepancies were not significant.4.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sThere were no unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s4.6 Candidates’ performanceCandidates’ performance was fair. They did well in Q1, but most battled with higher-orderquesti<strong>on</strong>s.NB: In some instances alternative answers were not acknowledged.4.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sWhere noticeable variances appear in <strong>the</strong> different levels <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> markers shouldbe m<strong>on</strong>itored.Marks were sometimes awarded for answers that were too vague and incomplete. Theprinciple <strong>of</strong> part marks had not yet been mastered.308
4.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksRaw marks. Judging from <strong>the</strong> sampled scripts, variance between markers and moderatorswas not significant.NB: Upward adjustment – <strong>the</strong>re was significant variati<strong>on</strong> in marking <strong>of</strong> up to 4%.Amount <strong>of</strong> external moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>eProvincePaperNo <strong>of</strong> scriptsTime spent <strong>on</strong> eachreceived moderated script (min)Eastern Cape 20 20 40Free State 20 8 40North West 20 15 40North West 20 15 405 COMPUTER APPLICATIONS TECHNOLOGY PAPER 1AND 25.1 Adherence to marking memorandumIt appeared that <strong>the</strong>re was adherence to <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum, as <strong>the</strong>discrepancies were insignificant. Provisi<strong>on</strong> had been made for alternative answers. In P2<strong>the</strong>re was no evidence <strong>of</strong> any deviati<strong>on</strong> from <strong>the</strong> memorandum.Western Cape P2: No problems were experienced in interpreting <strong>the</strong> memorandum.5.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyThere was c<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracy in <strong>the</strong> awarding <strong>of</strong> marks.Free State (P1): An error <strong>of</strong> 9 marks was discovered in <strong>on</strong>e script.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape: There was a variance <strong>of</strong> 6 marks in <strong>on</strong>e instance between marker andmoderator.5.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingThe quality and standard <strong>of</strong> marking was good. Changes made were mostly insignificant.Western Cape and Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape P2: The scripts submitted for moderati<strong>on</strong> had all beenmarked by ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> chief marker or <strong>the</strong> internal moderator.309
5.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was thoroughly d<strong>on</strong>e and errors had been corrected.5.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sThere were no unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s. Any unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s would have been addressed at <strong>the</strong>memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>.5.6 Candidates’ performanceCandidates’ performance was fair, with <strong>the</strong> pass rate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sample being over 60%.Western Cape P2: In this paper, <strong>the</strong> three candidates whose scripts were moderatedachieved above <strong>the</strong> average <strong>of</strong> a sample <strong>of</strong> 27 candidates from all provinces in allquesti<strong>on</strong>s except Q1.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape and North West P2: The three candidates whose scripts were moderatedachieved below <strong>the</strong> average <strong>of</strong> a sample <strong>of</strong> 27 candidates from all provinces in four out<strong>of</strong> seven questi<strong>on</strong>s.Mpumalanga: The three candidates whose scripts were moderated achieved below <strong>the</strong>average <strong>of</strong> a sample <strong>of</strong> 27 candidates from all provinces in five out <strong>of</strong> seven questi<strong>on</strong>s.Limpopo P2: The three candidates whose scripts were moderated achieved above <strong>the</strong>average <strong>of</strong> a sample <strong>of</strong> 27 candidates from all provinces in <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong>e out <strong>of</strong> sevenquesti<strong>on</strong>s.KwaZulu-Natal, Gauteng and Eastern Cape P2: In <strong>the</strong> three moderated scripts <strong>the</strong> learnersperformed below <strong>the</strong> average <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total moderated in five out <strong>of</strong> seven questi<strong>on</strong>s.Free State P2: The three candidates whose scripts were moderated achieved above <strong>the</strong>average <strong>of</strong> a sample <strong>of</strong> 27 candidates from all provinces in five out <strong>of</strong> seven questi<strong>on</strong>s.5.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sIt is a c<strong>on</strong>cern that <strong>the</strong>se submitted scripts had been “window-dressed”, and <strong>on</strong>e was notsure whe<strong>the</strong>r this was <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong> throughout.More time needs to be spent <strong>on</strong> spreadsheets and databases. However, <strong>the</strong> wordprocessingsecti<strong>on</strong> is <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> successes.The verificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking process probably followed too so<strong>on</strong> after <strong>the</strong> beginning <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> marking sessi<strong>on</strong>, when not much pre-marking had been d<strong>on</strong>e and it was difficult t<strong>of</strong>ind a representative sample.310
Provinces should be reminded <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> correct procedure to follow when a problem isexperienced with <strong>the</strong> marking guidelines, that is, external moderators should not bec<strong>on</strong>tacted directly; <strong>the</strong> problem should be dealt with via <strong>the</strong> DBE.Western Cape and Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape P2: Markers were advised to read learners’ answersvery carefully, as <strong>the</strong>re might be more ways to arrive at correct soluti<strong>on</strong>s than thosedescribed in <strong>the</strong> memorandum.5.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksRaw marks. The paper and <strong>the</strong> marking were fair. As <strong>the</strong>re were more sources <strong>of</strong> marksthan this <strong>on</strong>e paper, it did not make sense to propose an adjustment based <strong>on</strong> just this.Amount <strong>of</strong> external moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>eThree scripts out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 20 received from each province were moderated, at a rate <strong>of</strong> 25to 30 minutes per script.6 ECONOMICS6.1 Adherence to marking memorandumThere was variable adherence to <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum as agreed up<strong>on</strong> at <strong>the</strong>nati<strong>on</strong>al memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong> meetings. Some markers were more flexible than o<strong>the</strong>rsin allocating discreti<strong>on</strong>ary marks for alternative substantive facts put forward bycandidates. The majority <strong>of</strong> markers allocated marks to candidates for expressing <strong>the</strong> coreelements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> desired resp<strong>on</strong>ses in <strong>the</strong>ir own words.Limpopo and Mpumalanga: Markers compromised <strong>the</strong> integrity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject byallocating marks inc<strong>on</strong>sistently and indiscriminately.6.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyMark allocati<strong>on</strong> at all levels was generally c<strong>on</strong>sistent. The errors in recording marks werecorrected by <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants.The Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape should use a c<strong>on</strong>sistent system <strong>of</strong> entering marks in <strong>the</strong> right-handmargin.311
6.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingThe quality and standard <strong>of</strong> marking varied from unsatisfactory to very good. Individualmarkers were generally c<strong>on</strong>sistent and accurate in <strong>the</strong> allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks to <strong>the</strong>questi<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> answer scripts that <strong>the</strong>y were resp<strong>on</strong>sible for.Limpopo and Mpumalanga: Variances were unacceptable.6.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>There was evidence <strong>of</strong> thorough internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at all centres.6.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sNo unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s were found.6.6 Candidates’ performanceThe distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks indicated that <strong>the</strong> candidates found this paper fair, althoughmany struggled with <strong>the</strong> data-resp<strong>on</strong>se questi<strong>on</strong> in Secti<strong>on</strong> B. The l<strong>on</strong>g resp<strong>on</strong>se questi<strong>on</strong>was answered better than it had been in <strong>the</strong> past.6.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sA large number <strong>of</strong> candidates’ resp<strong>on</strong>ses indicated that certain secti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> syllabushad not been taught properly by educators.The appointment <strong>of</strong> markers remains a c<strong>on</strong>cern. In some cases, it was found that markersdid not have <strong>the</strong> necessary ability and experience to handle higher cognitive-levelquesti<strong>on</strong>s that required insight and logical reas<strong>on</strong>ing.Limpopo: Some markers found it difficult to apply an acceptable level <strong>of</strong> discreti<strong>on</strong>arymarking. There was also some evidence <strong>of</strong> ‘scan-reading’ <strong>of</strong> candidates’ resp<strong>on</strong>ses inSecti<strong>on</strong> C <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> answer scripts.Gauteng and Mpumalanga: Assessment bodies should encourage markers to make use<strong>of</strong> mark ticks () when allocating marks, instead <strong>of</strong> using a numerical notati<strong>on</strong> (viz. 1, 2,3, etc.), as this creates unnecessary c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong> with regard to sub-totals allocated forquesti<strong>on</strong>s.There was an improvement in <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> marking as a result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> trainingintroduced by <strong>the</strong> DBE and <strong>the</strong> PDEs. This process should be reinforced fur<strong>the</strong>r in future.The markers’ interpretati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> memorandum and <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>text <strong>of</strong> candidates’resp<strong>on</strong>ses have improved.312
6.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksNo mark adjustment was proposed.Amount <strong>of</strong> external moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>eNo. <strong>of</strong> scriptsExamining bodySubmitted/receivedExternally moderatedGauteng (<strong>on</strong>-site) 20 20Eastern Cape (<strong>on</strong>-site) 30 30KwaZulu-Natal (<strong>on</strong>-site) 18 18Limpopo (<strong>on</strong>-site) 30 30Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape (<strong>on</strong>-site) 26 26Mpumalanga 20 20North-West 20 20Free State 20 20Western Cape 20 207 ENGINEERING GRAPHICS AND DESIGN PAPERS 1AND 2 (CENTRALISED MODERATION)7.1 Adherence to marking memorandumThe marking memorandum was adhered to throughout. Answers in candidates’ ownwords were c<strong>on</strong>sidered.7.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyAwarding <strong>of</strong> marks was mostly c<strong>on</strong>sistent. Inaccuracies had an insignificant impact.7.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingThe quality and standard <strong>of</strong> marking was good and generally c<strong>on</strong>sistent.7.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>The internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was good and thorough. Moderati<strong>on</strong> was taking place at all <strong>the</strong>various levels, and errors were corrected.7.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sN<strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s were unfair.313
7.6 Candidates’ performanceCandidates appeared to find <strong>the</strong> paper fair, and performed better <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> whole in bothpapers than <strong>the</strong> previous year.7.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sThe memoranda were faxed to some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> provinces, which distorted <strong>the</strong> markingtemplates and could have caused problems at <strong>the</strong> marking centres. Provinces need to beadvised via DBE to print to <strong>the</strong> required scale.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was good. The assessment tool was well thought out and appliedefficiently.7.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksAn upward adjustment <strong>of</strong> 5% was proposed, after taking <strong>the</strong> SBA and PAT intoc<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong>.Amount <strong>of</strong> external moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>eP1 20 + P2 20 = 40 per province = 360 in total.8 ENGLISH FAL PAPERS 1, 2 AND 38.1 Adherence to <strong>the</strong> marking memorandumThe marking memorandum was adhered to. Alternative answers had been added at <strong>the</strong>memo discussi<strong>on</strong>.Mpumalanga P2: While alternative answers had been provided, many markers revealedan inability to think creatively and give credit for correct answers stated in o<strong>the</strong>r words.8.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyMarks were accurately captured and totalled. No changes were made to <strong>the</strong> memo at<strong>the</strong> marking centre.Mpumalanga P3: Markers were inclined to inflate marks, mainly because <strong>the</strong>y did notunderstand <strong>the</strong> rubrics.314
8.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingThe quality and standard <strong>of</strong> marking was average. By <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d day <strong>of</strong> marking,however, <strong>the</strong> markers were settling into correct and standardised marking.Mpumalanga P2: It was clear that some markers had difficulty thinking “out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> box”and evaluating answers that were <strong>of</strong>fered in different words to those in <strong>the</strong> memorandum.Limpopo P3: Some markers were too lenient in <strong>the</strong> beginning and <strong>on</strong>e marker did notindicate errors. The external moderator advised <strong>the</strong> chief marker to insist that she do so.Western Cape P1, 2 and 3: Marking was good.8.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>There was ample evidence <strong>of</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at all levels.8.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sAll questi<strong>on</strong>s were fair and set at <strong>the</strong> correct levels.8.6 Candidates’ performanceCandidates’ performance was found to be fair; <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sample appeared tohave fared fairly wellEastern Cape: At Cape Recife School, all <strong>the</strong> candidates appeared to have learningproblems. Their writing was not too bad, but <strong>the</strong>re were serious problems with spelling. Noc<strong>on</strong>cessi<strong>on</strong>s appeared to have been made for <strong>the</strong>se candidates.8.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sThe internal moderator had trained <strong>the</strong> markers well.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was competently d<strong>on</strong>e.Mpumalanga P3: Markers had difficulty interpreting <strong>the</strong> rubrics. More training wasprobably needed.8.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksRaw marks. The questi<strong>on</strong> paper and <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> marking were fair.315
Amount <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>eProvincePaperNo <strong>of</strong> scriptsTime spent <strong>on</strong> eachreceived moderated script (min)Eastern CapeRandom 17 30Mpumalanga 120 20 23Western Cape 20 20 23Mpumalanga20 20 302Western Cape 20 20 30Eastern CapeRandom 17 28Limpopo Random 20 303Mpumalanga 20 20 28Western Cape 20 20 289 ENGLISH HOME LANGUAGE PAPERS 1, 2 AND 39.1 Adherence to marking memorandumThe marking memorandum had generally been adhered to. Alternative answers wereprovided for in <strong>the</strong> memorandum, although in P2, <strong>the</strong> literature paper, it is not possible toprovide every possible alternative. Markers should be knowledgeable and able tocritically analyse, have an extensive knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> prescribed literature, and be ableto recognise valid answers.Free State P1: A query from <strong>the</strong> chief marker was answered by <strong>the</strong> internal moderator in away that c<strong>on</strong>tradicted what had previously been decided and implemented in <strong>the</strong>provinces.Mpumalanga and North West P1: Valid and alternative answers were generally notcredited (mainly in Q1), and this accounted for <strong>the</strong> great discrepancies in <strong>the</strong> allocati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> marks.Western Cape P1: The memorandum was adhered to, but markers were inclined to belenient and awarded more marks than deserved in open-ended questi<strong>on</strong>s.Western Cape P3: There were some large discrepancies in <strong>the</strong> awarding <strong>of</strong> marks for goodessays in particular.316
Free State P3: Markers and moderati<strong>on</strong>s were not all at <strong>the</strong> same level <strong>of</strong> competency,and <strong>the</strong> awarding <strong>of</strong> marks was sometimes inc<strong>on</strong>sistent, particularly in Secti<strong>on</strong> C.9.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyMarking was generally c<strong>on</strong>sistent and accurate, and no changes to <strong>the</strong> memorandumwere made in <strong>the</strong> provinces. In P2 <strong>the</strong>re was great c<strong>on</strong>sistency and variances wereinsignificant, except in <strong>on</strong>e script in <strong>the</strong> Free State. In P3 marking was c<strong>on</strong>sistent, except forSecti<strong>on</strong> C in <strong>the</strong> Free State.9.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingPaper 1:Free StateComprehensi<strong>on</strong>Visual literacySummaryLanguage (Q5)MpumalangaComprehensi<strong>on</strong>Visual literacySummaryLanguage (Q5)North WestComprehensi<strong>on</strong>Visual literacySummaryLanguage (Q5)Western CapeComprehensi<strong>on</strong>Visual literacySummaryLanguage (Q5)POOR AVERAGE GOODXXXXXXXXXXXXXXVERYGOODXXEXCELLENTMarking was not c<strong>on</strong>sistent across all markers in a province, as some remained unable torecognise alternative answers.317
Paper 3:POOR AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENTWestern CapeXMpumalangaNorth WestFree State Secti<strong>on</strong> C Secti<strong>on</strong>s A and BXX9.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>Scripts were moderated and it was hoped that errors were being brought to <strong>the</strong> attenti<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> markers.9.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sThere was no evidence <strong>of</strong> unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s.9.6 Candidates’ performanceCandidates’ performance in P1 was fair and <strong>the</strong>re was evidence <strong>of</strong> an acceptable range<strong>of</strong> marks. However, candidates struggled with higher-order questi<strong>on</strong>s. In Q5 (grammar)performance ranged from poor to excellent. At <strong>the</strong> lower range <strong>of</strong> performance <strong>the</strong>rewas a lack <strong>of</strong> engagement with <strong>the</strong> texts. Candidates need to be taught critical-thinkingskills, and <strong>the</strong> ability to substantiate an argument from <strong>the</strong> text and not from generalknowledge.In P2 candidates performed better in <strong>the</strong> lower-order questi<strong>on</strong>s. Candidates whoperformed poorly displayed an inability to critically analyse texts, and to express<strong>the</strong>mselves adequately in <strong>the</strong> language.In P3 performance was fair, spread across all performance levels. Some candidates’writing abilities were so limited that <strong>on</strong>e w<strong>on</strong>dered why <strong>the</strong>y had opted for <strong>the</strong> homelanguage opti<strong>on</strong>.9.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sNot all markers were competent. Markers appeared to be “strict” with better-performingcandidates (withholding full marks for excellent answers) and too lenient with weakcandidates (awarding marks for substandard answers). Markers should be better trained.Free State P2: Moderators should guard against over-moderati<strong>on</strong>, and ra<strong>the</strong>r moderatedifferent questi<strong>on</strong>s over a wide variety <strong>of</strong> scripts. Uniformity in technical aspects <strong>of</strong> markingshould be established and three markers should mark a script, ra<strong>the</strong>r than two.318
For P3 <strong>the</strong> rubrics should be mediated more c<strong>on</strong>scientiously, and <strong>the</strong> markers should bebetter trained.9.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksRaw marks.Amount <strong>of</strong> external moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>eTwenty scripts were received per province, from nine to 12 were moderated, and 20 to 25minutes per script was spent <strong>on</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>. In P2 <strong>the</strong> marking was as follows:No. <strong>of</strong> scripts moderatedPoetry Novel DramaWestern Cape 12 9 9Free State 11 11 11North West 10 10 10Mpumalanga 10 10 1010 GEOGRAPHY PAPERS 1 AND 210.1 Adherence to marking memorandumMarkers followed <strong>the</strong> standardised marking guideline and moderati<strong>on</strong> revealed qualitymarking. A range <strong>of</strong> alternative answers to cover all aspects had been included.10.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyMost markers were accurate in <strong>the</strong> allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks and in totalling. No changes weremade to <strong>the</strong> memorandum at <strong>the</strong> marking centre.10.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingThe quality and standard <strong>of</strong> marking was rated as “average”. All markers had not yetcome to grips with <strong>the</strong> memorandum. Moreover, <strong>the</strong>y were unsure when it came toc<strong>on</strong>cepts like global climate change and drought.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape P2: The marking was rated as “good”. Markers did not deviate from <strong>the</strong>marking memorandum, and <strong>the</strong>ir c<strong>on</strong>tent knowledge was good.319
10.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> had a positive impact because candidates’ marks were verified andmarking errors corrected so that learners were not disadvantaged.10.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sThere were no unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s. All questi<strong>on</strong>s were within <strong>the</strong> syllabus.10.6 Candidates’ performanceAccording to evidence in <strong>the</strong> scripts, <strong>the</strong> candidates found <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper “fair”.Candidates’ performance was variable, depending <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir preparati<strong>on</strong> for <strong>the</strong>examinati<strong>on</strong>.10.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sThe standard <strong>of</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was commended. Markers were encouraged tokeep <strong>on</strong> marking accurately.10.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksRaw marks. The paper was fair and <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s were within <strong>the</strong> parameters <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>examinati<strong>on</strong> guidelines.No <strong>of</strong> scripts moderated: 10Time spent per script:3,5 hours for 10 scripts.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape:No <strong>of</strong> scripts moderated: 15Time spent per script:2 hours for 15 scripts.11 HISTORY PAPERS 1 AND 2Centralised moderati<strong>on</strong>11.1 Adherence to marking memorandumThe marking guidelines were to a great extent applied c<strong>on</strong>sistently and effectively.Alternative answers had been captured in <strong>the</strong> marking guidelines.Eastern Cape P1: The scripts at <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> centres had not been marked according to <strong>the</strong>memorandum. They had to be red<strong>on</strong>e.320
NB: Eastern Cape P2: External moderati<strong>on</strong> was not d<strong>on</strong>e. There was a major problem at<strong>the</strong> marking centre when <strong>the</strong> provincial <strong>of</strong>ficials did not put in an appearance and <strong>the</strong>marking memoranda and questi<strong>on</strong> papers were not available. Despite <strong>the</strong> best efforts <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> centre manager, <strong>the</strong> training started a full day late. The result was that marking <strong>on</strong>lystarted <strong>on</strong> 5 December, <strong>the</strong> day when external moderati<strong>on</strong> was supposed to take place.At that time not a single representative <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Assessment and Examinati<strong>on</strong>s Directoratehad put in an appearance. The work was also delayed because <strong>the</strong> signedmemorandum had not been sent with <strong>the</strong> scripts.The moderator and chief marker were most distressed about <strong>the</strong> situati<strong>on</strong>, and this mighthave had a negative effect <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking process for P2.11.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyMarking was generally c<strong>on</strong>sistent and accurate. Some markers were inclined to generositywhen marking <strong>the</strong> essay questi<strong>on</strong>s, even when <strong>the</strong> essay was not focused. A fear <strong>of</strong>awarding too high or too low marks led to some bunching in <strong>the</strong> middle range.11.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingIn general <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> marking was good and markers adhered to <strong>the</strong> markingguidelines.Eastern Cape and Gauteng P1: A questi<strong>on</strong>-by-questi<strong>on</strong> method <strong>of</strong> marking was used togood effect.11.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>Vigorous internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at all levels was visible in <strong>the</strong> scripts from most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>assessment bodies.11.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sThere were no unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s.11.6 Candidates’ performanceCandidates’ performance was fair, although extended writing was still a c<strong>on</strong>cern.However, performance in <strong>the</strong> source-based questi<strong>on</strong>s was satisfactory.Candidates’ inability to answer extended writing questi<strong>on</strong>s, paragraphs or essays as wellas an inability to remain focused <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> topic are causes for grave c<strong>on</strong>cern.321
11.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sAlthough c<strong>on</strong>cerns about marking had been addressed <strong>the</strong> previous year and again at<strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>the</strong>re were still some centres where markers did not mark strictlyaccording to pages 4 to 7 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking guidelines. For example, more ticks wereawarded than provided for in <strong>the</strong> memo for essays. Never<strong>the</strong>less, most markers didadhere to <strong>the</strong> guidelines.Markers, chief markers and internal moderators had to ensure that <strong>the</strong> marking guidelinesmenti<strong>on</strong>ed above were applied c<strong>on</strong>sistently.Some essays that did not fulfil <strong>the</strong> requirements were awarded very high marks, but mostmarkers showed an improved understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> matrixes used to mark extendedwriting.Candidates needed to be taught how to write essays, for example to include a goodintroducti<strong>on</strong> and c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>, and how to structure an argument.On-site moderati<strong>on</strong>The <strong>on</strong>-site moderati<strong>on</strong> was a successful exercise. It gave <strong>the</strong> external moderator <strong>the</strong>opportunity to select a variety <strong>of</strong> scripts from various centres which had been moderatedat <strong>the</strong> different levels at <strong>the</strong> centres. The interacti<strong>on</strong> with <strong>the</strong> marking teams at <strong>the</strong> centresalso helped to address difficulties immediately at <strong>the</strong> beginning <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking period.The marking and internal moderati<strong>on</strong> were d<strong>on</strong>e very well by most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> assessmentbodies. A minority <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> assessment bodies need to address <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns andrecommendati<strong>on</strong>s menti<strong>on</strong>ed above.11.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksRaw marks.Amount <strong>of</strong> external moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>e:ProvincePaperNo <strong>of</strong> scriptsTime spent <strong>on</strong> eachreceived moderated script (min)Eastern CapeRandomly1selected10 25Gauteng 24 15 25Centralised20 centres10 x 9 percentre = 90322
12 ISINDEBELE HL PAPERS 1, 2 AND 312.1 Adherence to <strong>the</strong> marking memorandumThe memorandum was adhered to. All alternatives had been provided for at <strong>the</strong>memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>.Gauteng P3: One marker did not adhere to <strong>the</strong> memo and had to re-mark.12.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyThere was c<strong>on</strong>sistency throughout in mark allocati<strong>on</strong>. No changes to <strong>the</strong> markingmemorandum were made at <strong>the</strong> marking centre.12.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingThe quality <strong>of</strong> marking was rated as “good” and marking was found to be accuratethroughout.12.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>The internal moderator acted as both marker and moderator.12.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sThere were no unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s.12.6 Candidates’ performanceCandidates’ performance was described as “fair”. All questi<strong>on</strong>s were attempted.P1: Candidates had difficulty with <strong>the</strong> language secti<strong>on</strong>.P2: Candidates could not answer <strong>the</strong> poetry secti<strong>on</strong>.12.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sThe internal moderator was also <strong>the</strong> chief marker and marker.12.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksRaw marks. The questi<strong>on</strong> paper and <strong>the</strong> marking were fair.323
Amount <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>eProvinceGautengMpumalangaPaperNo <strong>of</strong> scriptsTime spent <strong>on</strong> eachreceived moderated script (min)1 16 16 202 15 15 153 40 19 201 40 21 202 40 4 203 40 19 2013 ISIXHOSA HL PAPERS 1, 2 AND 313.1 Adherence to <strong>the</strong> marking memorandumThe memorandum was adhered to. Very few errors <strong>of</strong> judgement were found.13.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyThere was c<strong>on</strong>sistency in mark allocati<strong>on</strong> and accuracy in <strong>the</strong> totalling <strong>of</strong> marks.13.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingThe quality and standard <strong>of</strong> marking was good, although <strong>the</strong>re were a few minordiscrepancies.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape P2: <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> marking was average, with somediscrepancies being found <strong>of</strong> up to 8 marks.13.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was being d<strong>on</strong>e, and any errors were corrected. Feedback was givento enhance marking.13.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sThere were no unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s.13.6 Candidates’ performanceCandidates’ performance was found to be fair. In P1 candidates had some difficulty with<strong>the</strong> language questi<strong>on</strong>s.324
Western Cape P2: It would appear that poetry analysis is not being taught.13.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sWestern Cape P1: Learners lost marks because <strong>the</strong>y did not use <strong>the</strong>ir own words.Western Cape and Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape P3: It was important to give c<strong>on</strong>stant feedback tomarkers. It would seem that writing is not being taught very well.13.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksRaw marks. The questi<strong>on</strong> paper and marking were fair.Western Cape P1: An upwards adjustment was suggested because <strong>of</strong> Secti<strong>on</strong> A wherecandidates were losing marks for quoting.Amount <strong>of</strong> external moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>eNo <strong>of</strong> scriptsTime spent <strong>on</strong> eachProvincePaperreceived moderated script (min)Gauteng174 11 -KwaZulu-Natal 265 6 -HL P1Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape 187 13 -Western Cape 4 4 35Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape187 13 -HL P2Western Cape 10 10 50Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape187 13 -HL P3Western Cape 7 7 4014 ISIZULU HOME LANGUAGE PAPERS 1, 2 AND 314.1 Adherence to <strong>the</strong> marking memorandumThe marking memorandum was generally adhered to, although <strong>the</strong>re were some answerswhere <strong>the</strong> markers were not adhering precisely to <strong>the</strong> prescripts. Alternative answers hadbeen added at <strong>the</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al memo discussi<strong>on</strong>.14.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyThere was c<strong>on</strong>sistency in <strong>the</strong> marking, even in <strong>the</strong> summary which markers <strong>of</strong>ten finddifficult. Differences were insignificant. No changes had been made to <strong>the</strong> memo.325
Gauteng (P1): There was some inc<strong>on</strong>sistency in marking, with some markers battling with<strong>the</strong> summary.14.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingThe quality and standard <strong>of</strong> marking was good. Although <strong>the</strong>re were a few minormistakes, marking improved as time went <strong>on</strong>.Gauteng P1: Some markers were too lenient and too generous with marks.14.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was being d<strong>on</strong>e at all levels.14.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sThere were no unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s.14.6 Candidates’ performanceCandidates’ performance was fair. Questi<strong>on</strong> 1 was answered very well, but candidatesexperienced problems with <strong>the</strong> visuals and <strong>the</strong> grammar questi<strong>on</strong>.Gauteng P1: Candidates’ performance was above average, but <strong>the</strong> language questi<strong>on</strong>brought down <strong>the</strong>ir marks.14.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sAll questi<strong>on</strong>s should be moderated, and all markers should be acquainted with <strong>the</strong>memorandum. Markers should be able to use <strong>the</strong>ir pr<strong>of</strong>essi<strong>on</strong>al judgement whencandidates express <strong>the</strong>ir own opini<strong>on</strong>.More appropriate material could have been selected for <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper.14.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksRaw marks. There were no unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s to warrant adjustment.326
Amount <strong>of</strong> external moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>eProvincePaperNo <strong>of</strong> scriptsTime spent <strong>on</strong> eachreceived moderated script (min)GautengSampled frommany20 25KwaZulu-Natal 120 20 25MpumalangaSampled frommany21 2515 LIFE SCIENCES (VERSIONS 1 AND 2) PAPERS 1AND 215.1 Adherence to <strong>the</strong> marking memorandumThe approved marking memorandum was adhered to and <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence <strong>of</strong> anychanges. Alternatives had been added to <strong>the</strong> memorandum at <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>.KwaZulu-Natal P1 V2: Where candidates had phrased <strong>the</strong>ir answers differently to those in<strong>the</strong> memorandum, answers could not always be interpreted by <strong>the</strong> marker.NB: Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape P1 and 2 V2: One set <strong>of</strong> markers marked both Versi<strong>on</strong> 1 and Versi<strong>on</strong> 2.The old c<strong>on</strong>tent paper is <strong>on</strong>ly marked <strong>on</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> new versi<strong>on</strong> marking has been completed.There were <strong>the</strong>refore no marked scripts to be moderated at <strong>the</strong> external moderator’s visit.15.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyGenerally, accuracy and c<strong>on</strong>sistency were good. No changes were made to <strong>the</strong> memo,although some changes were made to <strong>the</strong> memorandum at <strong>the</strong> marking centre, <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>instructi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al internal moderator, who communicated <strong>the</strong> changes to allprovinces. Accordingly, two alternatives were added.KwaZulu-Natal P1 V2: <strong>Umalusi</strong> marks differed by between –5 and +3 in 20 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 40 scriptsmoderated. In some cases correct answers had been marked incorrect, even in scriptsthat had been re-marked by a sec<strong>on</strong>d marker/internal moderator. The chief marker wasalerted to certain questi<strong>on</strong>s that were presenting a challenge.Mpumalanga P1 V2: <strong>Umalusi</strong> marks differed from those <strong>of</strong> provincial markers by between –1 and +3 in 11 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 20 scripts that were moderated. In some cases, correct answers were327
marked incorrect after <strong>the</strong> scripts had been looked at by at least <strong>on</strong>e o<strong>the</strong>r level <strong>of</strong>provincial check.15.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingThe quality and standard <strong>of</strong> marking was good, although <strong>the</strong>re were minor adjustments.Markers were challenged by <strong>the</strong> answers <strong>of</strong> open-ended questi<strong>on</strong>s and answers inlearners’ own words.Western Cape P1 and 2 V2: Marking was good and <strong>the</strong> adjustments were insignificant.KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo P1 V2: The quality <strong>of</strong> marking was average. There were somediscrepancies.KwaZulu-Natal P1 V2: The quality <strong>of</strong> marking was average. The internal moderator had<strong>on</strong>ly managed to moderate 17 scripts over <strong>the</strong> three days <strong>of</strong> marking.Mpumalanga P1 V2: Markers need to be encouraged to read for <strong>the</strong> sense <strong>of</strong> an answer.Some learners gave correct answers which were not recognised by <strong>the</strong> markers.Gauteng P2 V2: The quality <strong>of</strong> marking was average. Markers had to learn to look for <strong>the</strong>sense <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> answer and not <strong>the</strong> precise words.15.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>There was evidence <strong>of</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> bundle moderated by <strong>Umalusi</strong>.Western Cape P1 and 2 V1: There was no evidence <strong>of</strong> multiple levels <strong>of</strong> internalmoderati<strong>on</strong>.North West P1 and 2 V1: There was ample evidence <strong>of</strong> multiple levels <strong>of</strong> internalmoderati<strong>on</strong>.15.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sP1 V1: One questi<strong>on</strong> was problematic owing to a poor Afrikaans translati<strong>on</strong>. All <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rquesti<strong>on</strong>s were fair.In <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r questi<strong>on</strong> papers <strong>the</strong>re were no unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s.15.6 Candidates’ performanceCandidates’ performance was found to fair, although <strong>the</strong>re was a wide distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>marks.328
North West P1 and 2 V1: The marks ranged between 23 and 129/150 in P1, and between45 and 130/150 in P2.Western Cape P1 and 2 V1: There was a wide range <strong>of</strong> marks, in P1 from 24 to 133/150,and in P2 from 15 to 140/150.Gauteng P2 V1: Candidates found <strong>the</strong> paper difficult. Essay writing was a particularproblem.KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga P1 V2: Candidates found <strong>the</strong> paper difficult. The parttimecandidates do not seem to be able to cope without proper teaching.Gauteng P1 V2: Candidates found <strong>the</strong> paper difficult.15.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sModerators were doing a sterling job, and it was clear that <strong>the</strong> training was having <strong>the</strong>desired effect. Both moderated and unmoderated scripts had to be moderated in orderto m<strong>on</strong>itor <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong> at various levels.Western Cape P1 and 2 V1: Internal moderators should also be moderating to provide anadditi<strong>on</strong>al level <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>, and to verify <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> chief marker.15.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksRaw marks. The papers were fair.Gauteng P2 V1: Marks were adjusted upwards because it was believed <strong>the</strong>re were toomany paragraph questi<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> paper and this had disadvantaged <strong>the</strong> candidates.Amount <strong>of</strong> external moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>eProvincePaperNo <strong>of</strong> scriptsTime spent <strong>on</strong> eachreceived moderated script (min)Eastern Cape20 bundles 20-24 25Gauteng 40 (random) 40 22KwaZulu-Natal P1 V140 (random) 40 22Limpopo 240 40 22Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape 10 bundles 22 25Gauteng20 20 20P2 V1Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape 10 bundles 22 25KwaZulu-Natal40 40 8P1 V2Mpumalanga 20 20 8329
Gauteng P2 V2 20 20 8Western Cape P1 and 2 V1 20 + 20 40 25North West P1 and 2 V1 20 + 20 40 2516 MATHEMATICAL LITERACY PAPERS 1 AND 2Centralised and <strong>on</strong>-site moderati<strong>on</strong>16.1 Adherence to marking memorandumThe marking memorandum was generally adhered to. Provisi<strong>on</strong> had been made foralternative resp<strong>on</strong>ses in <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum.Limpopo (P2): The paper was not properly adhered to and variati<strong>on</strong>s from -4 to +10 werefound in 50% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> scripts.Eastern Cape P1: A few instances were discovered in <strong>the</strong> sample where markers andmoderators did not adhere to <strong>the</strong> memorandum.16.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyA fair amount <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracy in <strong>the</strong> marking was found.KwaZulu-Natal P1: The external moderator was not happy with <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sistency andaccuracy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking. Twenty discrepancies were found in 10 scripts that had alreadybeen moderated.Limpopo P1: There were also some inaccuracies in <strong>the</strong> calculati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks. Problemswere still being experienced with CA.16.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingMarking was generally <strong>of</strong> a good standard. There was generally a smaller variati<strong>on</strong> inmarks than in <strong>the</strong> past.Limpopo P2: This province was <strong>the</strong> excepti<strong>on</strong>, as more marking errors were made.Eastern Cape P1: Marking was rated as average. Seven errors were found in four scripts,80% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m due to n<strong>on</strong>-adherence to <strong>the</strong> memo. Two <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> scripts were error-free.330
KwaZulu-Natal P1: The quality <strong>of</strong> marking was very poor and moderati<strong>on</strong> revealed manyerrors. It appeared that norms for <strong>the</strong> appointment <strong>of</strong> ma<strong>the</strong>matics markers were notadhered to.16.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>It was clear that moderati<strong>on</strong> was being d<strong>on</strong>e and <strong>the</strong> levels could be distinguished.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape: An instructi<strong>on</strong> was given by <strong>the</strong> CES (Examinati<strong>on</strong>s) that all scripts had tobe re-marked when moderating. This would be addressed.Limpopo: The moderati<strong>on</strong> by senior markers and deputy chief markers was notsatisfactory.Eastern Cape P1: The chief marker and deputy chief marker were sometimes simplyshadow-marking and failing to spot errors.KwaZulu-Natal: Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was not d<strong>on</strong>e well. Many errors were discovered afterinternal moderati<strong>on</strong>. Apparently promoti<strong>on</strong> depends <strong>on</strong> experience, not expertise.16.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sNo unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s and no errors were found in <strong>the</strong> paper.16.6 Candidates’ performanceIn <strong>the</strong> samples submitted, Limpopo and Mpumalanga performed just below <strong>the</strong> average<strong>of</strong> 52,9% in P1. Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape achieved <strong>the</strong> highest percentage.In P2 Eastern Cape performed well below <strong>the</strong> average, while Western Cape performedbest.16.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sMore attenti<strong>on</strong> should be paid to c<strong>on</strong>sistent accuracy in marking during memorandumdiscussi<strong>on</strong>s, and this should be applied at <strong>the</strong> marking centres.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape applies re-marking instead <strong>of</strong> verificati<strong>on</strong> at moderati<strong>on</strong>.With <strong>the</strong> excepti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Limpopo, adherence to <strong>the</strong> memorandum was <strong>of</strong> a good standard.Eastern Cape P1: The training <strong>of</strong> chief markers was inadequate, and <strong>the</strong> appointment <strong>of</strong>deputy chief markers has to be revisited.331
Some provinces should install a system by means <strong>of</strong> which an external moderator candistinguish at which level moderati<strong>on</strong> is taking place.16.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksRaw marks. The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was fair and those students who had prepared copedwith <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s.Amount <strong>of</strong> external moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>eP1: 125 moderatedP2: 115 moderated.KwaZulu-Natal: No. <strong>of</strong> scripts received: 16No <strong>of</strong> scripts moderated: 10Limpopo: No. <strong>of</strong> scripts received: 20No <strong>of</strong> scripts moderated: 20Time spent:15 min per script.17 MATHEMATICS P1 AND P217.1 Adherence to marking memorandumIn some cases <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum was not adhered to, and correct answers weremarked wr<strong>on</strong>g and vice versa. However, no changes were made to <strong>the</strong> memorandum.Eastern Cape P2: Serious discrepancies in marking and moderati<strong>on</strong> were found where <strong>on</strong>emarker and <strong>on</strong>e moderator were making serious mistakes. The external moderatorc<strong>on</strong>tacted <strong>the</strong> internal moderator at <strong>the</strong> marking centre, and <strong>the</strong>y discussed <strong>the</strong> scriptsteleph<strong>on</strong>ically. It later appeared that <strong>the</strong> batch sent had been extracted from <strong>the</strong> firstbatch <strong>of</strong> marking, and that <strong>the</strong> marking had later improved.North West P2: The scripts arrived for centralised moderati<strong>on</strong> with a list <strong>of</strong> alternativeanswers that had been accepted. However, <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se answers was totally wr<strong>on</strong>g. Theexternal moderator immediately faxed an urgent note to <strong>the</strong> centre to warn againstaccepting this incorrect soluti<strong>on</strong>.332
Gauteng P1: The marker resp<strong>on</strong>sible for marking Q1 was not adhering to <strong>the</strong>memorandum and not applying CA marking c<strong>on</strong>sistently. This was brought to <strong>the</strong>attenti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> chief marker.Western Cape and Gauteng P2, Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape P1 and P2, Free State P2: The externalmoderator believed that <strong>the</strong> memorandum was too strict and that <strong>the</strong> able candidateswere being penalised for leaving out steps when <strong>the</strong>y could work out <strong>the</strong> calculati<strong>on</strong>s in<strong>the</strong>ir heads. However, he had been outvoted at <strong>the</strong> memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong>interests <strong>of</strong> a simpler memorandum.Free State P1: Markers marked c<strong>on</strong>sistently according to <strong>the</strong> marking guidelines.KwaZulu-Natal P1: In 10 scripts 20 variati<strong>on</strong>s were found. Fifty-five per cent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se weremostly due to failure to adhere to <strong>the</strong> memorandum. This reflects poorly <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong>training that had taken place.Mpumalanga P2: Ten errors were found in four scripts.17.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyGenerally, <strong>the</strong> marking was c<strong>on</strong>sistent and accurate.Western Cape P1: In <strong>the</strong> three scripts that were thoroughly re-marked, nine errors werefound. There various reas<strong>on</strong>s for <strong>the</strong>se discrepancies. Q3.2 was poorly marked.Western Cape and Gauteng P2: There was a high level <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sistency in <strong>the</strong> awarding <strong>of</strong>marks. The external moderator differed with 1 or 2 marks out <strong>of</strong> 150.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape P1 and 2: Marking was c<strong>on</strong>sistent and accurate. There were no significantvariati<strong>on</strong>s.Mpumalanga P2: The chief marker and senior markers were marking accurately.Mpumalanga P1: Markers were marking c<strong>on</strong>sistently, but were not accurate in <strong>the</strong>allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks.17.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingFew errors were found in <strong>the</strong> marking. The marking was rated good to excellent.Gauteng P1: A full day had been spent <strong>on</strong> training, and <strong>the</strong> marking was going well.333
Western Cape P1: <strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> marking was found to be average. There were errors inmarking.North West P1: In four papers moderated, 10 errors were found.Mpumalanga P2: The marking was average. A senior marker was found not to be able toadequately handle a soluti<strong>on</strong> that was not in <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum. This reflectspoorly <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> pre-marking training that had taken place. Sixty per cent <strong>of</strong>errors found were a result <strong>of</strong> not adhering to <strong>the</strong> agreed marking memorandum. In twoinstances markers awarded marks for completely wr<strong>on</strong>g answers.Mpumalanga P1: Marking was average.17.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>Western Cape P1: Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was found to be average.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape P1 and P2: Very few differences were found between <strong>the</strong> marks awardedby <strong>the</strong> internal and <strong>the</strong> external moderators.Eastern Cape P2: The standard <strong>of</strong> marking was lower than that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r provincesmoderated so far. At <strong>the</strong> beginning <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sessi<strong>on</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong> should beparticularly strict.KwaZulu-Natal P1: As many as nine errors in two scripts were overlooked by <strong>the</strong> deputychief markers.North West P1: Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was average.Mpumalanga P2: Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was average.Mpumalanga P1: Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was poor. In four scripts nine errors were found,eight <strong>of</strong> which had been made by <strong>the</strong> senior markers.Free State P1: Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was good.17.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sThere were no unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s, or questi<strong>on</strong>s with errors in <strong>the</strong>m.334
North West P2: It appeared that <strong>the</strong>re was a better spread <strong>of</strong> marks than in past years,which proved that <strong>the</strong>re were sufficient level-1 questi<strong>on</strong>s.Mpumalanga P2: The questi<strong>on</strong> paper in this province differed from <strong>the</strong> <strong>on</strong>e issued by DBE.The diagram in Q6 was absent, so candidates were disadvantaged. After widespreadc<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong>, it was agreed that 11/24 marks would not be marked and <strong>the</strong> percentagemark would be calculated using <strong>the</strong> reduced total, namely, 139.17.6 Candidates’ performanceNo comment.17.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sWestern Cape P1: The training <strong>of</strong> senior markers was inadequate, although more careneeds to be taken.KwaZulu-Natal P1: Markers who applied to mark Ma<strong>the</strong>matics P1 had to send in <strong>the</strong>irsoluti<strong>on</strong>s to <strong>the</strong> problems in <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper. Accordingly, <strong>on</strong>ly 150 out <strong>of</strong> 338applicants resp<strong>on</strong>ded. It was not clear, however, whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>se soluti<strong>on</strong>s were put to anyfur<strong>the</strong>r use, or whe<strong>the</strong>r markers’ performance had been used to allocate markers toparticular questi<strong>on</strong>s. Their placement appeared to be totally random.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape P1 and P2: The external moderator could make his own selecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> scriptsand moderated a wide selecti<strong>on</strong>.Mpumalanga P1: The poor moderati<strong>on</strong> reflected negatively <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> training d<strong>on</strong>e. Moreattenti<strong>on</strong> should be paid to <strong>the</strong> selecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> senior markers in <strong>the</strong> province.Free State P1: Marking in this province was well <strong>on</strong> track.18 MATHEMATICS P318.1 Adherence to marking memorandumThe chief marker and <strong>the</strong> internal moderator understood <strong>the</strong> memo properly and ensuredthat markers adhered to it. Detailed alternative answers were provided.335
Eastern Cape: Because <strong>the</strong> Eastern Cape did not send representatives to <strong>the</strong> memodiscussi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>the</strong>ir scripts were marked in Gauteng.Free State: The internal moderator and chief marker marked all <strong>the</strong> scripts <strong>the</strong>mselves.Western Cape: There were no significant inc<strong>on</strong>sistencies in adherence to <strong>the</strong>memorandum. In most cases markers were able to recognise alternative answers andaward marks accordingly.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape: The papers submitted to <strong>Umalusi</strong> were marked by <strong>the</strong> chief marker and<strong>the</strong> internal moderator <strong>on</strong>ly. The chief marker appeared not to grasp <strong>the</strong> memorandumvery well.Limpopo: The chief marker and <strong>the</strong> internal moderator ensured that markers adhered to<strong>the</strong> marking memorandum.18.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyThe awarding <strong>of</strong> marks was c<strong>on</strong>sistent and accurate, and where a marker made mistakes,<strong>the</strong>se were immediately rectified by <strong>the</strong> moderators.Free State: CA or follow-up marking sometimes gave problems.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape: The variance between <strong>the</strong> chief marker and <strong>the</strong> internal moderator wasfar too great.18.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingThe quality and standard <strong>of</strong> marking was found to be excellent. Markers understood <strong>the</strong>memorandum and moderati<strong>on</strong> rectified any minor errors.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape: The marking was average. The memorandum was not appliedc<strong>on</strong>sistently throughout by <strong>the</strong> chief marker.18.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>There was clear evidence <strong>of</strong> thorough moderati<strong>on</strong> across all levels.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape: Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was competently d<strong>on</strong>e, and <strong>the</strong> errors made by <strong>the</strong>chief marker were corrected.Mpumalanga: Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was very competently d<strong>on</strong>e.336
18.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sThere were no unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s.18.6 Candidates’ performanceCandidates’ performance was fair. Candidates struggled with higher-order questi<strong>on</strong>s andpro<strong>of</strong>s.Eastern Cape: A sample <strong>of</strong> 20 scripts was sent through. The highest mark was 98%, while13% failed. The lowest mark was 10%.Free State: A sample <strong>of</strong> 20 scripts was sent through. The highest mark was 92%, while 20%failed. The lowest mark was 17%.Western Cape: A sample <strong>of</strong> 20 scripts was sent through. The highest mark was 86%, while20% failed. The lowest mark was 13%.Gauteng: A sample <strong>of</strong> 20 scripts was sent through. The highest mark was 94%, while 15%failed. The lowest mark was 10%.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape: A sample <strong>of</strong> 20 scripts was sent. The highest mark was 93%, while 15%failed. The lowest mark was 14%.North West: A sample <strong>of</strong> 20 scripts was received. The highest mark was 75%, while 25%failed. The lowest mark was 21%.Mpumalanga: A sample <strong>of</strong> 20 scripts was sent in. The highest mark was 92%, while 5%failed. The lowest mark was 18%.Limpopo: Of <strong>the</strong> sample <strong>of</strong> 20 scripts that was sent in, <strong>the</strong> highest mark was 94%, while 15%failed. The lowest mark was 22%.KwaZulu-Natal: 20 scripts were sent for moderati<strong>on</strong>. The highest mark was 94%, nocandidates failed, and <strong>the</strong> lowest mark was 30%.18.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sThe standard <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> was high.The questi<strong>on</strong> paper adequately assessed <strong>the</strong> core assessment standards.337
Markers do not apply CA marking c<strong>on</strong>sistently. The geometry should be marked byexperienced markers.Western Cape: The scripts that were submitted for moderati<strong>on</strong> were picked from <strong>on</strong>ly twoexaminati<strong>on</strong> centres.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape: Senior markers must apply <strong>the</strong> memorandum meticulously.18.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksRaw marks. The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was fair and <strong>the</strong> marking was good. The cognitive level <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> paper was in keeping with <strong>the</strong> SAG.Amount <strong>of</strong> external moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>eProvincePaperNo <strong>of</strong> scriptsTime spent <strong>on</strong> eachreceived moderated script (min)Eastern Cape20 8 15Free State 20 20 15Gauteng 20 5 15Western Cape 20 5 15Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape 320 6 15North West 20 5 15Mpumalanga 20 5 15Limpopo 20 5 15KwaZulu-Natal 20 5 1519 PHYSICAL SCIENCES PAPER 1 AND 219.1 Adherence to marking memorandumThe maximum difference in mark allocati<strong>on</strong> between markers through to <strong>the</strong> externalmoderator was 2 to 4 marks (P2). Where alternatives were required <strong>the</strong>y had beenprovided at <strong>the</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al memo discussi<strong>on</strong>. The senior markers and internal moderatorunderstood and applied <strong>the</strong> memorandum.KwaZulu-Natal (P1): Of <strong>the</strong> 15 papers moderated, <strong>on</strong>ly three did not have <strong>the</strong>ir markschanged.338
North West P2: There was a very slight difference between <strong>the</strong> marks awarded by markersand those awarded by moderators – just 1 mark.19.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyThere was a satisfactory level <strong>of</strong> accuracy and c<strong>on</strong>sistency in <strong>the</strong> allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks. Nochanges were made to <strong>the</strong> memo at <strong>the</strong> marking centre.19.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingThe quality and standard <strong>of</strong> marking was found to be good to excellent. There was a highlevel <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sistency, with <strong>the</strong> variance being insignificant.Gauteng: The marking <strong>of</strong> P2 was excellent.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape: The marking <strong>of</strong> P1 was excellent.19.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was mostly effective.Western Cape: Errors were identified and corrected.Mpumalanga: Errors were identified and corrected.Eastern Cape P2: Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was competently d<strong>on</strong>e and errors were identifiedand corrected.19.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sThere were no unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s.19.6 Candidates’ performanceCandidates’ performance was found to be fair. The average mark per questi<strong>on</strong> perprovince, per sample <strong>of</strong> 20 scripts provided (P2), exceeded 50% except in Q5, 6, 7, 9 and11. The external moderator predicts that this pattern will be similar in <strong>the</strong> rest <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>provinces. The average candidate who had prepared for this examinati<strong>on</strong> was justlyrewarded.339
19.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sA few errors in marking were pointed out for <strong>the</strong> internal moderators in <strong>the</strong> Western Cape,Eastern Cape, Free State, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, and North West to take note <strong>of</strong>.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> ensured that <strong>the</strong> memorandum was adhered to. Better training alsoled to a better understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tents <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> memorandum.19.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksRaw marks. The papers were fair and marking was good. All candidates completed <strong>the</strong>papers. The general performance according to <strong>the</strong> sample was better that <strong>the</strong> previousyear.Amount <strong>of</strong> external moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>eProvincePaperNo <strong>of</strong> scriptsTime spent <strong>on</strong> eachreceived moderated script (min)Gauteng1 15 15 72 20 11 30KwaZulu-Natal 1 15 15 9Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape 1 15 15 9Western Cape 2 20 5 30Limpopo 2 20 11 30North West 2 20 5 30Mpumalanga 2 20 5 30Free State 2 20 5 30Eastern Cape 2 20 5 3020 SESOTHO HOME LANGUAGE PAPER 120.1 Adherence to <strong>the</strong> marking memorandumThe marking memorandum was adhered to.Free State and Gauteng: Errors in marking were discovered.NB: The marking memorandum sent to <strong>the</strong> provinces did not have all <strong>the</strong> alternativesdecided <strong>on</strong> at <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>. Therefore, a new copy had to be sent, but this <strong>on</strong>e,too, did not have all <strong>the</strong> alternatives. The use <strong>of</strong> both <strong>the</strong> old (incorrect) memorandum340
and <strong>the</strong> new (also incorrect) memorandum was subsequently authorised by <strong>the</strong> externalmoderator.20.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyMarkers were alert and meticulous, and marking was c<strong>on</strong>sistent. Marks were handled withaccuracy.KwaZulu-Natal: Marking was found to be inc<strong>on</strong>sistent and <strong>the</strong>re were many inaccuraciesin <strong>the</strong> totalling <strong>of</strong> marks.20.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingThe standard <strong>of</strong> marking ranged from average (KwaZulu-Natal) to excellent (Free Stateand North West)20.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>There was evidence <strong>of</strong> internal moderati<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> internal moderators were presentthroughout.20.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sThree errors were picked up in P1. Learners’ resp<strong>on</strong>ses were accepted.20.6 Candidates’ performanceCandidates’ performance was fair. They did fairly well in <strong>the</strong> comprehensi<strong>on</strong> test, but <strong>the</strong>summary and language questi<strong>on</strong>s posed problems for most candidates.20.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sIt is important that <strong>the</strong> internal moderator moderate scripts that have already beenmoderated by <strong>the</strong> senior markers in order to verify that <strong>the</strong>y are being meticulous in <strong>the</strong>irmoderati<strong>on</strong>.Careful supervisi<strong>on</strong> would have to be maintained over <strong>the</strong> marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> summary.20.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksRaw marks. The paper was fair and <strong>the</strong> marking accurate.KwaZulu-Natal: Adjust upwards with 5 raw marks. It was found that 13 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 15 externallymoderated scripts were marked too low.341
Amount <strong>of</strong> external moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>eNo <strong>of</strong> scriptsTime spent <strong>on</strong> eachProvincePaperreceived moderated script (min)Free State15 9 15-20Gauteng 14 14 201KwaZulu-Natal 20 15 20North West 12 7 15-2021 SETSWANA HOME LANGUAGE P1, 2 AND 321.1 Adherence to <strong>the</strong> marking memorandumThe approved marking memorandum was used, but <strong>the</strong>re were some inc<strong>on</strong>sistencies withopen-ended questi<strong>on</strong>s and markers experienced difficulties marking <strong>the</strong>se. As provisi<strong>on</strong>had been made for alternative answers at <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>, no changes to <strong>the</strong>marking memorandum were effected at <strong>the</strong> marking centre, except to providealternative phraseology with <strong>the</strong> same meaning.21.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyMarks were awarded c<strong>on</strong>sistently, except in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> open-ended questi<strong>on</strong>s. Markerstended to be lenient regarding spelling mistakes.21.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingThe quality and standard <strong>of</strong> marking was good. Marks were correctly totalled andtransferred. In some cases subtotals were written in <strong>the</strong> right-hand margin, which caused alittle c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>. The sampled scripts showed compliance with <strong>the</strong> memorandum. Differentcoloured pens were used to signify different levels <strong>of</strong> marking and moderati<strong>on</strong>. Markers atall <strong>the</strong> centres had problems marking open-ended questi<strong>on</strong>s and <strong>the</strong> summary, aslearners’ resp<strong>on</strong>ses had to be interpreted and not merely marked strictly according to <strong>the</strong>memorandum.21.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>Different coloured pens were used so <strong>the</strong> distincti<strong>on</strong> between moderati<strong>on</strong> levels was easy.Where marks differed it was by 1 to 3. The internal moderator re-marked <strong>the</strong> entire script.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape P1: The problem <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sistency was solved by allowing senior markers to“specialise” in moderating certain questi<strong>on</strong>s.342
21.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sThere were no unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s. Questi<strong>on</strong>s were within <strong>the</strong> syllabus, and at appropriatelevel.21.6 Candidates’ performanceCandidates’ performance was fair. Performance across <strong>the</strong> exam centres was fairlyc<strong>on</strong>sistent.21.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sInternal moderati<strong>on</strong> was thorough, although not all chief markers and markers wereequally accurate.North West P1: External moderati<strong>on</strong> revealed some errors, mainly with open-endedquesti<strong>on</strong>s.21.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksRaw marks. The questi<strong>on</strong> paper was fair and <strong>the</strong> spread <strong>of</strong> marks was appropriate.Amount <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>eProvincePaperNo <strong>of</strong> scriptsTime spent <strong>on</strong> eachreceived moderated script (min)Free State HL P1 10 10 30Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape HL P1 10 10 30North West HL P1 20 20 25Gauteng HL P2 10 10 3022 SISWATI HOME LANGUAGE AND FAL PAPERS 1, 2AND 322.1 Adherence to <strong>the</strong> marking memorandumThere was no deviati<strong>on</strong> from <strong>the</strong> approved marking memorandum and no changes weremade at <strong>the</strong> marking centre, as provisi<strong>on</strong> had been made for alternative answers at <strong>the</strong>memo discussi<strong>on</strong>.343
22.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyMarks were awarded c<strong>on</strong>sistently, and <strong>the</strong> totalling and transferral <strong>of</strong> marks, having beencorrected by <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants, were accurate. No changes were made to <strong>the</strong>memorandum at <strong>the</strong> marking centre.22.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingMarking was rated as “good”. The sampled scripts showed compliance with <strong>the</strong>memorandum. Marking and totalling were d<strong>on</strong>e correctly.22.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>There was <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong>e marker for <strong>the</strong> six HL and 23 FAL scripts, so <strong>the</strong>re was no internalmoderati<strong>on</strong>.22.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sThere were no unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s. All questi<strong>on</strong>s were within <strong>the</strong> syllabus and at <strong>the</strong>appropriate level for Grade 12.22.6 Candidates’ performanceCandidates’ experience <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper was rated as “fair”. Those who had prepared wereable to answer <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s pitched at <strong>the</strong> higher cognitive levels. Some performed verywell in <strong>the</strong> comprehensi<strong>on</strong> secti<strong>on</strong>. Q5 (language) gave <strong>the</strong> learners problems.22.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sThis was a good, challenging paper. The panel was doing a good job.22.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksRaw marks. The candidates’ performance was a true reflecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir ability. The paperwas fair and <strong>the</strong>y were not disadvantaged in any way. All learners completed <strong>the</strong> paper.No. <strong>of</strong> scripts received for moderati<strong>on</strong>: 31No <strong>of</strong> scripts moderated: 12Time spent per script:15 min.344
23 TOURISMNor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape23.1 Adherence to marking memorandumThere was no deviati<strong>on</strong> from <strong>the</strong> marking memorandum. During <strong>the</strong> memorandumdiscussi<strong>on</strong> alternative answers were added.23.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyThe allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks and marking was accurate. No changes to <strong>the</strong> memorandumwere made at <strong>the</strong> marking centre.23.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingThe marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sample submitted was d<strong>on</strong>e very well.23.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>There was very little variati<strong>on</strong> am<strong>on</strong>g <strong>the</strong> markers, internal moderator and externalmoderator, an indicati<strong>on</strong> that good work was being d<strong>on</strong>e.23.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sThere were no unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s. Any ambiguities were removed at <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>.23.6 Candidates’ performanceNo patterns emerged that could point to whe<strong>the</strong>r candidates found <strong>the</strong> paper fair ordifficult.23.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sAll markers should be aware that <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> Tippex is prohibited at marking centres.Markers could not always identify whe<strong>the</strong>r an answer that was presented in o<strong>the</strong>r words tothose in <strong>the</strong> memorandum was correct or not.23.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksWith such a small sample a valid opini<strong>on</strong> could not be expressed.345
Amount <strong>of</strong> external moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>eNo <strong>of</strong> scriptsTime spent <strong>on</strong> eachProvincePaperreceived moderated script (min)Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape 20 20 2524 TSHIVENDA HOME LANGUAGE PAPERS 1, 2 AND 324.1 Adherence to <strong>the</strong> marking memorandumThere was no deviati<strong>on</strong> from <strong>the</strong> approved marking memorandum and no changes weremade at <strong>the</strong> marking centre. Provisi<strong>on</strong> had been made for alternative answers at <strong>the</strong>memo discussi<strong>on</strong>.24.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyMarks were awarded c<strong>on</strong>sistently, and <strong>the</strong> totalling and transfer <strong>of</strong> marks was accurate.Marks were awarded according to <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> ticks <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper. There were nochanges to <strong>the</strong> memorandum at <strong>the</strong> marking centre.Limpopo P2: A change was effected at <strong>the</strong> marking centre. During <strong>the</strong> marking sessi<strong>on</strong> itwas discovered that learners who answered <strong>the</strong> two novels, Tshi do lilwa (Q7) and Bulayolo talifhaho (Q9) were awarded insufficient marks when awarded 1 mark per tick. Learnerswho answered Mafeladambwa (Q11), <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, had fewer points but got moremarks because it was agreed at <strong>the</strong> DBE memo discussi<strong>on</strong> that 2 marks would beawarded per point given because <strong>the</strong> book had fewer points. A resoluti<strong>on</strong> was taken by<strong>the</strong> external moderator, after discussing <strong>the</strong> issue with <strong>the</strong> internal moderator and <strong>the</strong>chief marker, that learners should be awarded 2 marks per point in all <strong>the</strong> books, so as notto disadvantage any <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m.These changes were communicated to <strong>the</strong> Gauteng province, chief marker and internalmoderator. The marking <strong>of</strong> this questi<strong>on</strong> went well with no challenges being experiencedin ei<strong>the</strong>r Gauteng or Limpopo.24.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingThe quality and standard <strong>of</strong> marking was good. The sampled scripts showed compliancewith <strong>the</strong> memorandum. Marking and totalling were d<strong>on</strong>e correctly.Limpopo P2: Marking was found to be good to excellent.346
24.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was diligently d<strong>on</strong>e.24.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sThere were no unfair questi<strong>on</strong>s. All questi<strong>on</strong>s were within <strong>the</strong> syllabus and at <strong>the</strong>appropriate level for Grade 12.24.6 Candidates’ performanceCandidates’ performance was found to be fair. Those who had prepared were able toanswer <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s pitched at higher cognitive levels. Some performed very well in <strong>the</strong>comprehensi<strong>on</strong> secti<strong>on</strong> (P1).24.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sThis was a good, challenging paper (P1). The marking and internal moderati<strong>on</strong> weregood.Whole-script moderati<strong>on</strong> should be d<strong>on</strong>e to get a better idea <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> candidates’ ability.24.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksRaw marks. The candidates’ performance was a true reflecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir ability. The paperwas fair and <strong>the</strong>y were not disadvantaged in any way.Amount <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>e: TshivendaGautengProvincePaperreceivedNo <strong>of</strong> scriptsmoderated245 22 30Limpopo HL P1245 20 30Mpumalanga 40 20 15GautengHL P2Limpopo 61 21 30Limpopo HL P3 20 30Time spent <strong>on</strong> eachscript (min)347
25 XITSONGA HOME LANGUAGE PAPERS 1, 2 AND 325.1 Adherence to <strong>the</strong> marking memorandumThe original memorandum was used and no alterati<strong>on</strong>s were made. Provisi<strong>on</strong> had beenmade for alternative answers at <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>. Markers adhered to this memoduring marking.25.2 C<strong>on</strong>sistency and accuracyThe use <strong>of</strong> ticks maintained c<strong>on</strong>sistency. Calculati<strong>on</strong>s were accurate. No changes weremade to <strong>the</strong> memorandum at <strong>the</strong> marking centre and <strong>the</strong> decisi<strong>on</strong>s made at <strong>the</strong> memodiscussi<strong>on</strong> were upheld.25.3 <strong>Quality</strong> and standard <strong>of</strong> markingThe quality and standard <strong>of</strong> marking was found to be good and complied with <strong>the</strong>memorandum. Care had to be taken with alternative answers.25.4 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>There was evidence <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>. Different coloured pens were used. Errors correctedearlier were not repeated.25.5 Unfair questi<strong>on</strong>sQuesti<strong>on</strong>s were fair and within <strong>the</strong> curriculum. Never<strong>the</strong>less, candidates had to be wellprepared.Limpopo P1: Q5 was open to misinterpretati<strong>on</strong>.25.6 Candidates’ performanceCandidates’ performance was fair. Those who had not prepared fared badly.Gauteng P2: Out <strong>of</strong> a sample <strong>of</strong> five <strong>on</strong>e was rated “good”, two “fair”, and two “poor”.Problems appeared to have been experienced with Secti<strong>on</strong>s B and C.25.7 Findings and suggesti<strong>on</strong>sThe examinati<strong>on</strong> was fair, but candidates performed poorly. Some did not do <strong>the</strong>summary (P1). Most performed poorly in <strong>the</strong> language secti<strong>on</strong>.Educators should be <strong>of</strong>fered workshops <strong>on</strong> teaching <strong>the</strong>se secti<strong>on</strong>s properly.Findings at <strong>the</strong> marking centre should be cascaded down to teachers.348
Limpopo P3: The moderator had to ensure that candidates were not penalised twice, andmarkers were able to distinguish between language and c<strong>on</strong>tent.25.8 Adjustment <strong>of</strong> marksRaw marks. The paper was fair, but it is thought that learners are not taking <strong>the</strong>ir homelanguage seriously.Amount <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> d<strong>on</strong>e: Xits<strong>on</strong>gaGautengLimpopoProvincePaperNo <strong>of</strong> scriptsTime spent <strong>on</strong> eachreceived moderated script (min)1 137 20 232 137 20 231 10 10 152 5 5 203 5 5 20349
ADDENDUM 5MONITORING OF THE CONDUCT OF THE EXAMINATION(To be read in c<strong>on</strong>juncti<strong>on</strong> with chapter 5 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> main <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>)5.1 EXAMINATION CENTRESMost <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> criteria for c<strong>on</strong>ducting <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> were met, and <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>the</strong> criteria thatwere not met are listed below.5.1.1 General management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>ProvinceEastern CapeFree StateFindings: Criteria not metAt Keiskammahoek circuit <strong>of</strong>fice, where questi<strong>on</strong> papers were storedbefore distributi<strong>on</strong> to <strong>the</strong> schools, <strong>the</strong>re was no security, guards, burglarpro<strong>of</strong>ing or str<strong>on</strong>g room, and <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong>e senior accounting <strong>of</strong>ficer to handle<strong>the</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong>.All questi<strong>on</strong> papers were received in time and were sealed in <strong>the</strong>irpackages.Fifty per cent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> schools kept irregularity files. O<strong>the</strong>rs did not makecopies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> irregularity <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s sent to <strong>the</strong> District Office.At some schools candidates had to remain in <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> room until<strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sessi<strong>on</strong>, and in o<strong>the</strong>rs <strong>the</strong>y were allowed to leave after anhour.All chief invigilators were principals, and had been appointed in writing.At three centres (Iphateleng, Libertas and Harm<strong>on</strong>y Bridging) questi<strong>on</strong>papers were stored in steel cabinets in <strong>the</strong> administrati<strong>on</strong> blocks before <strong>the</strong>commencement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s. This was not secure enough.At all but 11 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> centres, more <strong>of</strong>ficials than chief invigilators had accessto examinati<strong>on</strong> material, which was a security risk.At Harrist<strong>on</strong> and Harm<strong>on</strong>y Bridging, <strong>the</strong> appointment <strong>of</strong> chief invigilatorsand invigilators was not c<strong>on</strong>firmed in writing. At Harm<strong>on</strong>y Bridging <strong>the</strong>invigilators were not trained.At Ithabeleng, Steynsrus and Tikwane, questi<strong>on</strong> papers were signed for <strong>on</strong>arrival, but not checked.Iphateleng, Calculus and Libertas did not keep records <strong>of</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>material/stati<strong>on</strong>ery.There were no standardised procedures in place for dealing withunregistered candidates.Resp<strong>on</strong>dents did not know how to deal with candidates who had changedlevels or subjects.At Harrist<strong>on</strong>, candidates who arrived more than 30 minutes late were notallowed to write, nor were <strong>the</strong>y allowed to do so at Harm<strong>on</strong>y Bridging.350
ProvinceFindings: Criteria not metThere was no uniformity regarding <strong>the</strong> amount <strong>of</strong> time after whichcandidates were allowed to leave <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> centre.There were no c<strong>on</strong>tingency plans in place to deal with crises or disrupti<strong>on</strong>sat Harm<strong>on</strong>y Bridging, Matseripe, Iphateleng, Nanabolela, Nkgopoleng orTikwane.GautengAppointment letters for chief invigilators could not be produced in a fewcentres, but this was fewer than 5%.There were no serious irregularities, but <strong>the</strong>re were a few technical <strong>on</strong>es,which would be <strong>of</strong>ficially <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed in due course <strong>on</strong>ce investigati<strong>on</strong>s havebeen finalised by <strong>the</strong> province.KwaZulu-Natal Charlestown did not have access c<strong>on</strong>trol.In many centres measures to deal with crises had not been well thoughtout. Many had evacuati<strong>on</strong> plans in place but no drills had taken place.LimpopoSome schools, especially those visited in October and <strong>the</strong> beginning <strong>of</strong>November, e.g. Nakgwadi, Hlomela and Nkateko, had not yet receivedplastic satchels for packaging scripts.Measures for dealing with crises were not very explicit at some schools.DBE schools did not keep attendance registers for invigilators.Mpumalanga Examinati<strong>on</strong> centres did not have c<strong>on</strong>tingency plans in place for anycrises.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cape Owing to unrest in <strong>the</strong> JT Gaetsewe District, about 391 candidates from 10schools were removed to ano<strong>the</strong>r district to write <strong>the</strong> exam. Accordingly,<strong>the</strong>y were bussed to examinati<strong>on</strong> centres every day from <strong>the</strong> Warrent<strong>on</strong>Cultural Resort. A large group from <strong>on</strong>e school wrote in <strong>the</strong> hall at <strong>the</strong>cultural resort.Some security measures were in place, although some were better thano<strong>the</strong>rs, at all schools except Port Nolloth, where <strong>the</strong>re were no securitymeasures at all.At C<strong>on</strong>cordia High all members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> management team had access to<strong>the</strong> space where <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers were stored.There were no guards at Warrent<strong>on</strong> Primary. Although some arrived later,<strong>the</strong>y had not been trained.At Paballelo High <strong>the</strong> chief invigilator had not received an appointment inwriting.At Thlwahalang High <strong>the</strong> replacement for <strong>the</strong> principal, who had beensuspended, had not been properly trained.At <strong>the</strong> interventi<strong>on</strong> centres (Warrent<strong>on</strong>), external invigilators were used, but<strong>the</strong>ir training was insufficient.At Thlwahalang High seating plans were not displayed, and things werechaotic <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> day <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> visit.At Warrent<strong>on</strong> Primary <strong>the</strong>re was no examinati<strong>on</strong> manual in <strong>the</strong> file.At Martin Oosthuizen High questi<strong>on</strong> papers were received from <strong>the</strong> DistrictOffice <strong>on</strong>ly 15 minutes before <strong>the</strong> commencement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong><strong>the</strong> first day.It would appear that adequate arrangements had been made for learnerswith special needs.351
ProvinceFindings: Criteria not metSome schools had c<strong>on</strong>tingency plans in place.North WestAll arrangements were in order.Western CapeThe examinati<strong>on</strong> timetable was prominently displayed.Questi<strong>on</strong> papers were stored safely with limited access.Chief invigilators were trained in September.Internal and external invigilators were used, <strong>the</strong> latter being trained locally.A stock register <strong>of</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> material was kept.5.1.2 The examinati<strong>on</strong> room – generalProvinceFindings: Criteria not metEastern Cape At Lukhanyiso High <strong>the</strong> centre number and start/finish times were notdisplayed.Internal and external invigilators were used, but nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> two groupswore any form <strong>of</strong> identificati<strong>on</strong>.Free State The locati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> rooms were not indicated at Sasamala,Libertas, Taung, Winburg, Matseripe, Iphateleng, Nanabolela, Calculus,Nkgopoleng and Harm<strong>on</strong>y Bridging.At Seotl<strong>on</strong>g and Tikwane noise levels were high at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> schoolday.The centre numbers were not displayed at Harrist<strong>on</strong>, Harm<strong>on</strong>y Bridging,and Steynsrus. Start/finish times were not displayed at Moriting-wa-Thuto,Ithabeleng, Steynsrus, and Tikwane.Gauteng At a few centres <strong>the</strong> locati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> rooms was not indicated –fewer than 30%.KwaZulu-Natal The locati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> rooms was not indicated at most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>centres.LimpopoAt Mpandeli <strong>on</strong>e examinati<strong>on</strong> room had a terrible smell caused by mites in<strong>the</strong> ro<strong>of</strong>.Mpumalanga At Secunda <strong>the</strong>re were computer charts all over <strong>the</strong> walls.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeNorth WestWestern CapeArrangements for communicati<strong>on</strong> between <strong>the</strong> invigilator <strong>on</strong> duty and <strong>the</strong>chief invigilator were not satisfactory.Directi<strong>on</strong>s to <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> rooms were not indicated at any <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>centres, for various reas<strong>on</strong>s.Few centres had thought comprehensively about c<strong>on</strong>tingency plans incase <strong>of</strong> crises.Some centres in Bojanala and Dr RS Mompati districts were in disrepair andnot suitable to be used as examinati<strong>on</strong> venues.Outside candidates were not directed to <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> rooms, but hadto <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> at recepti<strong>on</strong> and be escorted to <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> room.The examinati<strong>on</strong> rooms were in order.352
5.1.3 The examinati<strong>on</strong> room – seating <strong>of</strong> candidatesProvinceKwaZulu-NatalMpumalangaNor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeNorth WestWestern CapeFindings: Criteria not metAt Sesiyab<strong>on</strong>ga High <strong>the</strong> computers were very close to each o<strong>the</strong>r.Guidance was given that <strong>the</strong> centre should ra<strong>the</strong>r make use <strong>of</strong> two sessi<strong>on</strong>sin future, with <strong>the</strong> isolati<strong>on</strong> procedure being followed.At Sarel Cilliers a candidate had to be relocated to ano<strong>the</strong>r placebecause she experienced problems with her computer five minutes before<strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sessi<strong>on</strong>.At Letshele computers were too close toge<strong>the</strong>r and <strong>the</strong> tables/desks didnot have side flaps.At some schools <strong>the</strong> seating arrangements were not displayed and this ledto chaos.At Motswedi High School <strong>the</strong> tables were too close toge<strong>the</strong>r due to lack <strong>of</strong>sufficient classrooms to accommodate <strong>the</strong> large number <strong>of</strong> candidates.Seating plans were pasted up outside <strong>the</strong> venues so <strong>the</strong>re could be noc<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>.Seating was in numerical order as <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> mark sheets.5.1.4 Prior to <strong>the</strong> commencement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>ProvinceEastern CapeFree StateGautengKwaZulu-NatalLimpopoMpumalangaNor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeFindings: Criteria not metThe identificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> candidates was not c<strong>on</strong>sistent across examinati<strong>on</strong>centres. This should be attended to.In o<strong>the</strong>r respects <strong>the</strong> regulati<strong>on</strong>s were followed.IDs and examinati<strong>on</strong> permits were not checked at Mamello, Harrist<strong>on</strong> andIthabeleng. At Tikwane examinati<strong>on</strong> permits <strong>on</strong>ly were checked.Some chief invigilators allowed mobile ph<strong>on</strong>es into <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> venuesbut with <strong>the</strong> proviso that <strong>the</strong>y be switched <strong>of</strong>f completely. O<strong>the</strong>rs did notallow cell ph<strong>on</strong>es at all in <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> rooms.Cell ph<strong>on</strong>es were not allowed in <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> room at some centres,while at o<strong>the</strong>rs <strong>the</strong>y were allowed in, with candidates being told to switch<strong>the</strong>m <strong>of</strong>f.At <strong>the</strong> rural schools invigilators did not check whe<strong>the</strong>r all candidates had<strong>the</strong> right questi<strong>on</strong> paper.At <strong>the</strong> rural schools candidates did not go through <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paperpage by page to check for technical errors or blank pages.At two centres candidates arrived late but were treated according to <strong>the</strong>rules.There appeared to be a great deal <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong> about who was supposedto present identificati<strong>on</strong> documents, and whe<strong>the</strong>r it was required <strong>of</strong> fulltimecandidates as well.Various strategies were employed regarding <strong>the</strong> checking <strong>of</strong> candidates’identity documents, and some chief invigilators appeared not to be fullyinformed about <strong>the</strong> requirements. For example, at Aggeneys High <strong>the</strong> chiefinvigilator did not know that candidates had to complete affidavits if <strong>the</strong>y353
ProvinceNorth WestWestern CapeFindings: Criteria not metarrived without identificati<strong>on</strong>.The ratio <strong>of</strong> invigilators to candidates was maintained except at Warrent<strong>on</strong>High where <strong>the</strong> ratios varied am<strong>on</strong>g 1:41, 1:35 and 1:47. It wasrecommended that three more invigilators be appointed.At Warrent<strong>on</strong> Primary <strong>on</strong>e invigilator had his cell ph<strong>on</strong>e <strong>on</strong> and received acall while invigilating. This was <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed to <strong>the</strong> chief invigilator.Rules were read out to candidates at most schools before <strong>the</strong>commencement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>, but not at Warrent<strong>on</strong> Primary.The whereabouts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> rooms were not displayed atNababeep High and Garies in <strong>the</strong> interests <strong>of</strong> security.At Tlhwahalang High <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> rooms were not cleaned regularly,and at Veritas <strong>the</strong> room where candidates did <strong>the</strong>ir Engineering Graphicsand Design drawings was very hot with inadequate ventilati<strong>on</strong> and noceiling fans.At Port Nolloth, Garies and Loeriesf<strong>on</strong>tein <strong>the</strong> toilet facilities were dirty andsmelly.At Warrent<strong>on</strong> Primary <strong>the</strong>re was no clock, and start–finish times and <strong>the</strong>centre number were not displayed.The policy <strong>on</strong> identificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> candidates is not uniformly understood anddifferent practices were found. At some centres <strong>the</strong>y were adamant that<strong>the</strong> policy applied to part-time candidates <strong>on</strong>ly.The use <strong>of</strong> name tags for invigilators was not universal.Invigilators were <strong>on</strong> duty at least 30 minutes before <strong>the</strong> start <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sessi<strong>on</strong>.As in o<strong>the</strong>r provinces, <strong>the</strong>re was inc<strong>on</strong>sistency in <strong>the</strong> requirements foridentificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> candidates.No cell ph<strong>on</strong>es were allowed <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> pers<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> candidates.354
5.1.5 Writing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>ProvinceEastern CapeFree StateGautengKwaZulu-NatalLimpopoMpumalangaNor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeFindings: Criteria not metCorrect procedures were followed.Invigilators collected scripts at <strong>the</strong> desks, except at Lukhanyiso High wherecandidates handed in at <strong>the</strong> desk and <strong>the</strong> cover page was checked.At Mamello, Ithabeleng, Steynsrus and Tikwane, candidates were notinstructed to verify that <strong>the</strong>y were writing <strong>the</strong> correct paper.At Nkgopoleng candidates were given between 5 and 23 minutes readingtime.IDs and examinati<strong>on</strong> permits were not displayed at Harrist<strong>on</strong>, Harm<strong>on</strong>yBridging and Ithabeleng. At Libertas, Moriting-wa-Thuto, Mamello,Iphateleng and Nanabolela <strong>on</strong>ly permits were displayed. At Tikwane <strong>on</strong>ly<strong>on</strong>e out <strong>of</strong> five displayed <strong>the</strong>ir ID and at Matseripe <strong>on</strong>e out <strong>of</strong> 35 did notdisplay <strong>the</strong>ir ID.At nine centres daily <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were not prepared, and at seven centres <strong>the</strong>ywere <strong>on</strong>ly prepared when <strong>the</strong>re were irregularities or somethingextraordinary to <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>.Steynsrus, Tikwane, Iphateleng, Libertas and Taung did not have irregularityregisters.There were no serious irregularities <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed during this period, except for afew technical <strong>on</strong>es which would be <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed after <strong>the</strong>y had beendiscussed at a full Nati<strong>on</strong>al Meeting <strong>on</strong> 18 December 2012. A full <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong><strong>the</strong> irregularities would be forwarded to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> <strong>of</strong>fices electr<strong>on</strong>ically,so<strong>on</strong> after <strong>the</strong> meeting.At some centres some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> activities, such as checking whe<strong>the</strong>rcandidates had <strong>the</strong> correct questi<strong>on</strong> papers and checking <strong>the</strong> filling in <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> answer books, were omitted.At some centres a daily <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> was completed and returned to a nodalpoint <strong>on</strong>ly if <strong>the</strong>re had been an incident.On 5 December 2012 it was very hot in Vhembe District and, as a result, <strong>the</strong>principal at Mpandeli High School provided big fans in each examinati<strong>on</strong>room to reduce <strong>the</strong> heat. Two candidates had to receive first aid but wereable to c<strong>on</strong>tinue writing.Most chief invigilators did not page through <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers with <strong>the</strong>candidates to detect any technical errors.There appeared to be c<strong>on</strong>tradictory instructi<strong>on</strong>s regarding reading time, sothat some centres allowed 10 minutes and o<strong>the</strong>rs 15 minutes.At Tlhwahalang High <strong>the</strong> correctness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper was not checked with<strong>the</strong> candidates.At Warrent<strong>on</strong> Primary almost no reading time was given, due to <strong>the</strong>inexperience <strong>of</strong> invigilators. At Port Nolloth 20 minutes was allowed instead<strong>of</strong> 10.At Okiep High <strong>on</strong>e invigilator sat down for quite a while. At Warrent<strong>on</strong>Primary an invigilator used a cell ph<strong>on</strong>e while invigilating, and at FJ SmitCombined School <strong>the</strong> chief invigilator occupied himself with administrativework instead <strong>of</strong> assisting <strong>the</strong> invigilator in a venue where 50 candidateswere writing.355
ProvinceNorth WestWestern CapeFindings: Criteria not metAt Tlhwahalang High <strong>the</strong>re were several scripts <strong>the</strong> cover page <strong>of</strong> whichhad not been filled in after <strong>the</strong> scripts had been collected.Also at Tlhwahalang High, candidates started leaving as so<strong>on</strong> as <strong>the</strong>irscripts had been collected. The m<strong>on</strong>itor requested that <strong>the</strong>y be broughtback and that <strong>the</strong> correct procedure be followed.In some districts daily <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were submitted, while in o<strong>the</strong>rs <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s weresubmitted at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> each week.At Warrent<strong>on</strong> Primary invigilators were unfamiliar with procedures forhandling irregularities. Retraining was requested and was carried out.There were several technical irregularities, but in each case <strong>the</strong> candidateswere permitted to write and <strong>the</strong> incidents were <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed to <strong>the</strong>examinati<strong>on</strong> secti<strong>on</strong>.There was no clarity or uniformity <strong>on</strong> how l<strong>on</strong>g <strong>the</strong> reading time should be,and what could not be d<strong>on</strong>e during this reading time.Reports were <strong>on</strong>ly sent to <strong>the</strong> PDE when <strong>the</strong>re was an incident or irregularityto <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>.Schools neglected to record technical or administrative irregularities.An interesting innovati<strong>on</strong> was <strong>the</strong> register to be signed by two candidates,verifying that <strong>the</strong> correct package <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> papers had been broughtto <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> room.Papers were checked for technical errors.Ten minutes’ reading time was allowed throughout.Verbal guidance was given for <strong>the</strong> completi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cover pages <strong>of</strong>candidates’ scripts.5.1.6 Packaging and transmissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> answer scriptsProvinceEastern CapeAll regulati<strong>on</strong>s were followed.Findings: Criteria not metFree StateAt three <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> centres unused examinati<strong>on</strong> material/stati<strong>on</strong>ery wascollected by <strong>the</strong> departmental <strong>of</strong>ficial and taken back to <strong>the</strong> district <strong>of</strong>fice.At <strong>the</strong> remaining 18 <strong>the</strong>y were kept at <strong>the</strong> centre.356
5.1.7 M<strong>on</strong>itoringProvinceFree StateLimpopoFindings: Criteria not metAt Harrist<strong>on</strong>, Harm<strong>on</strong>y Bridging, Libertas, Ithabeleng, Tikwane, Winburg andMatseripe, <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence to show that any m<strong>on</strong>itoring had takenplace.There were no entries in <strong>the</strong> irregularity registers.MpumalangaM<strong>on</strong>itors appeared not to have been trained.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeNorth WestWestern CapeMost centres received visits from m<strong>on</strong>itors, but <strong>the</strong>ir efficiency wasquesti<strong>on</strong>ed. At Aggeneys High four m<strong>on</strong>itors had visited <strong>the</strong> centre withoutpointing out <strong>the</strong> obvious shortcomings discovered by <strong>the</strong> external m<strong>on</strong>itor.At Warrent<strong>on</strong> Primary it had not been picked up that <strong>the</strong> invigilators wereinadequately trained.A register <strong>of</strong> m<strong>on</strong>itors’ visits was not comm<strong>on</strong>ly in use, and it was suggestedthat this be kept.M<strong>on</strong>itoring <strong>of</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s by <strong>the</strong> district was not c<strong>on</strong>sistent.At <strong>the</strong> beginning <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> m<strong>on</strong>itoring was slack.M<strong>on</strong>itors seldom arrived in time for <strong>the</strong> beginning <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sessi<strong>on</strong>.M<strong>on</strong>itoring was more comm<strong>on</strong> at some centres than at o<strong>the</strong>rs.M<strong>on</strong>itors were required to sign a register.5.2 MONITORING OF MARKING5.2.1 Planning for markingProvinceEastern CapeFree StateFindingsThere were 15 marking centres in <strong>the</strong> province, <strong>of</strong> which 11 werem<strong>on</strong>itored.Marking centres were located in schools and former colleges <strong>of</strong> educati<strong>on</strong>.In many cases markers were accommodated <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> premises.Classrooms were used for marking and <strong>the</strong> hall or ano<strong>the</strong>r facility as ac<strong>on</strong>trol room. The <strong>of</strong>fices were also used.A manual, “Managing marking centres”, was used and all <strong>the</strong> centres weremanaged according to this manual.At some centres <strong>the</strong> marking memoranda were delivered late.All <strong>the</strong> centres had different plans <strong>on</strong> different aspects <strong>of</strong> what had to beplanned for.All <strong>the</strong> centres followed <strong>the</strong> provincial marking model. The model was usedbecause it ensured easy c<strong>on</strong>trol and minimised risk.The centres had appropriate measures in place to support <strong>the</strong> markingmodel.Marking commenced as planned at all <strong>the</strong> centres.357
ProvinceGautengKwaZulu-NatalLimpopoFindingsAll <strong>the</strong> centres received marking guidelines before <strong>the</strong> commencement <strong>of</strong>marking.All centres visited by <strong>Umalusi</strong> m<strong>on</strong>itors had well typed-out plans for marking.The Gauteng Department <strong>of</strong> Educati<strong>on</strong> (GDE) centres followed <strong>the</strong>Provincial Marking Model.Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> aspects c<strong>on</strong>tained in <strong>the</strong> plan were training <strong>of</strong> examiners,appointment <strong>of</strong> markers, marking procedures, transferring <strong>of</strong> marks andunderstanding irregularities.No marker was allowed to mark <strong>the</strong> scripts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir own centre.Chief markers kept lists <strong>of</strong> all markers.C<strong>on</strong>trol was very strict.The GDE followed <strong>the</strong> staggered method <strong>of</strong> marking and <strong>the</strong>re were tenmarking centres.The GDE drew its markers from within <strong>the</strong> boundaries <strong>of</strong> Gauteng.The centres had marking plans in place.Marking was d<strong>on</strong>e at 28 decentralised marking centres. All <strong>the</strong> papers weremarked in <strong>the</strong> same time period.The marking process for <strong>the</strong> 2012 NSC examinati<strong>on</strong> scripts was managed intwo sessi<strong>on</strong>s. The first sessi<strong>on</strong> commenced <strong>on</strong> 17 November 2012 andc<strong>on</strong>tinued to 28 November 2012.During this sessi<strong>on</strong> marking took place at two centres, namely, Tivumbenifor marking scripts for Ma<strong>the</strong>matics P1 and Ma<strong>the</strong>matical Literacy P1 andat Makhado for Agricultural Sciences P1 and P2.The sec<strong>on</strong>d sessi<strong>on</strong> started <strong>on</strong> 1 December 2012 and ended <strong>on</strong> 12December 2012 at all <strong>the</strong> twenty centres.Each centre was allocated <strong>on</strong>e or more subjects depending <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>number <strong>of</strong> entries for each subject.All marking centres had a marking plan in place supplied by <strong>the</strong> provincialdepartment <strong>of</strong> educati<strong>on</strong>, indicating how marking should be managedLimpopo province had 20 marking centres and different subjects wereallocated to each centre. One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 20 centres was allocated to <strong>the</strong>marking <strong>of</strong> ABET Level 4 scripts for all learning areas (Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Academy).Scripts were marked at <strong>the</strong>se centres <strong>on</strong>ly and nowhere else.All <strong>the</strong> centres had communicati<strong>on</strong> systems in place and accommodati<strong>on</strong>for markers.All staff at <strong>the</strong> marking centre, rooms/halls for <strong>the</strong> marking <strong>of</strong> scripts,storerooms and suitable furniture were used for both administrati<strong>on</strong> andmarking.All marking centres ensured through <strong>the</strong> chief markers that, whenallocating scripts to markers and senior markers, teachers did not markscripts from <strong>the</strong>ir own schools.The main marking sessi<strong>on</strong> was planned to start <strong>on</strong> 1 December 2012 and toend <strong>on</strong> 12 December 2012.On 1 December 2012 scripts arrived after 14h00 at Ben Viljoen and Settlers,but markers were able to do <strong>the</strong> work scheduled for <strong>the</strong> day.Marking memoranda were available to chief markers <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> day358
ProvinceMpumalangaNor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeNorth WestWestern CapeFindingsscheduled for memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s for deputy and senior markers.All marking centres were given memoranda <strong>on</strong> 2 December 2012 in orderto train deputy chief markers and senior markers, and <strong>on</strong> 3 December 2012<strong>the</strong> markers were given memoranda and were trained.Of <strong>the</strong> 18 marking centres, 14 were m<strong>on</strong>itored. Two <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sites were usedfor ABET.The marking centres were well organised by <strong>the</strong> PDE and were housed atschools and former colleges <strong>of</strong> educati<strong>on</strong>.Hostel accommodati<strong>on</strong> at Dr CN Mahlangu FET College was notappropriate, as <strong>the</strong>re were problems with water and geysers and <strong>the</strong>accommodati<strong>on</strong> was not in regular use.All plans were in place.Appointment <strong>of</strong> markers, senior markers, and examinati<strong>on</strong> assistantscommenced in August.No more than 600 markers were permitted per venue.Dietary needs were provided for.Daily attendance registers were kept.The marking centres were located at three schools in Kimberley whichmade easy management possible.Arrangements were set out in a manual.Extensive plans were in place to c<strong>on</strong>trol <strong>the</strong> marking at all 12 markingcentres.The plans also supported <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> competent <strong>of</strong>ficials tomanage <strong>the</strong> marking process.A detailed plan was available.All marking was d<strong>on</strong>e at <strong>on</strong>e centre.All paperwork was ready <strong>the</strong> day before <strong>the</strong> beginning <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> markingsessi<strong>on</strong>.5.2.2 Marking centresProvinceEastern CapeFree StateGautengFindingsAll marking centres were housed at schools and former colleges <strong>of</strong>educati<strong>on</strong>.All <strong>the</strong> marking centres were housed at sec<strong>on</strong>dary schools, and halls andclassrooms were used as venues for marking.Communicati<strong>on</strong> facilities, abluti<strong>on</strong> facilities, accommodati<strong>on</strong> for markersand furniture used were all <strong>of</strong> an acceptable standard.The marking centres were well organised; classrooms and lecture halls wereset aside for <strong>the</strong> marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> NSC scripts.Most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> venues had <strong>the</strong> requisite communicati<strong>on</strong> facilities.There were sufficient abluti<strong>on</strong> facilities for all those who came to mark, aswell as <strong>the</strong> staff members. They were always kept clean as cleaners hadbeen hired.359
ProvinceKwaZulu-NatalLimpopoNor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeNorth WestWestern CapeFindingsThe markers who were not provided with accommodati<strong>on</strong> were promisedthat <strong>the</strong>y could claim expenses at <strong>the</strong> end.All GDE centres opened at 7h00 in <strong>the</strong> morning and closed at 19h00 in <strong>the</strong>evening. Provisi<strong>on</strong> was made for special dietary requirements.The marking centres were housed at schools with hostels.Classrooms were used for marking.Communicati<strong>on</strong> facilities, such as teleph<strong>on</strong>es, faxes and <strong>the</strong> internet, wereavailable and functi<strong>on</strong>al.Abluti<strong>on</strong> facilities and accommodati<strong>on</strong> were generally <strong>of</strong> an acceptablestandard. At Port Shepst<strong>on</strong>e Primary c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> women’saccommodati<strong>on</strong> were not acceptable.Furniture used by markers was appropriate.All staff signed attendance registers daily – in <strong>the</strong> morning and <strong>the</strong>afterno<strong>on</strong>.At all <strong>the</strong> centres <strong>the</strong> food was <strong>of</strong> good quality. Three menus, as prescribed,were used. Special provisi<strong>on</strong> was made for alternative dietaryrequirements.Marking centres in Limpopo were ei<strong>the</strong>r high schools with boarding facilitiesor former colleges <strong>of</strong> educati<strong>on</strong>.The centres had classrooms and boarding facilities and were in goodc<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>. They had clean abluti<strong>on</strong> facilities and <strong>the</strong> necessary furniture formarking. Some centres had air c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ed halls used for marking, forexample Ben Viljoen and Ben Vorster.Provisi<strong>on</strong> was made for special dietary requirements.The menu was prescribed by <strong>the</strong> provincial department <strong>of</strong> educati<strong>on</strong>.Accommodati<strong>on</strong> had been arranged at various hostels.Communicati<strong>on</strong> facilities were available.Provisi<strong>on</strong> was made for various dietary requirements.Attendance registers were signed.All <strong>the</strong> amenities were utilised at <strong>the</strong> boarding schools used as markingcentres.The centres fulfilled all aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> requirements for marking centres.Daily attendance registers were signed by all markers and <strong>of</strong>ficials.A “command centre” was available at <strong>the</strong> marking centre for <strong>the</strong> markingcentre manager and his staff, with all <strong>the</strong> necessary communicati<strong>on</strong>facilities.Accommodati<strong>on</strong> was arranged <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> campus for out-<strong>of</strong>-town markers,and dietary preferences were catered for.A daily attendance register was signed by markers and o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>of</strong>ficials.5.2.3 SecurityProvinceEastern CapeFindingsSecurity at <strong>the</strong> marking centres was tight.Scripts were handled with very securely, being signed for every time <strong>the</strong>y360
ProvinceFindingschanged hands.Free StateGautengKwaZulu-NatalLimpopoAccess to <strong>the</strong> marking centres was c<strong>on</strong>trolled by security guards and <strong>the</strong>rewere guards at <strong>the</strong> entrances <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong> venues.The chief markers and security guards ensured <strong>the</strong> security <strong>of</strong> answerscripts, and no <strong>on</strong>e was allowed to remove scripts from <strong>the</strong> venues.Scripts were transported to and from <strong>the</strong> marking centres by trucks withtracking systems. The trucks were escorted by departmental <strong>of</strong>ficials.Access to <strong>the</strong> marking centres was strictly c<strong>on</strong>trolled by security pers<strong>on</strong>nel.At some marking centres additi<strong>on</strong>al security staff were employed.Security at <strong>the</strong> centres was tight. When markers left <strong>the</strong> centres in <strong>the</strong>evenings, <strong>the</strong>ir bags and briefcases were opened and searched by <strong>the</strong>security pers<strong>on</strong>nel.No unauthorised pers<strong>on</strong>s were admitted to any <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> centres.Nobody was permitted to take scripts out <strong>of</strong> any classroom.The transportati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> scripts to and from <strong>the</strong> marking centres was <strong>the</strong>resp<strong>on</strong>sibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> GDE.Centre managers kept a full typed list <strong>of</strong> chief markers, markers, internalmoderators and examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants.Access to marking centres was not strictly c<strong>on</strong>trolled.Markers were expected to wear identity tags.At Umlazi Comtech and Eshowe High searches were not very thorough.Inside centres <strong>the</strong>re were security guards <strong>on</strong> duty 24 hours a day. Eachcentre had a complete list <strong>of</strong> all those involved in <strong>the</strong> marking process.Scripts arrived at <strong>the</strong> marking centres in covered trucks with security inattendance.Script c<strong>on</strong>trol was very strict, with every movement <strong>of</strong> every script recordedand c<strong>on</strong>trolled.Marking took place in designated marking rooms <strong>on</strong>ly.The flow <strong>of</strong> scripts was carefully c<strong>on</strong>trolled during all <strong>the</strong> stages <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>marking process and security guards escorted <strong>the</strong> scripts as <strong>the</strong>y weremoved from <strong>on</strong>e point to ano<strong>the</strong>r.Access to <strong>the</strong> marking centre was c<strong>on</strong>trolled by security guards.Security at <strong>the</strong> main gate and at strategic points, as well as <strong>the</strong> entrancesto marking venues, was very tight. All visitors were searched at <strong>the</strong> maingateChief markers signed for <strong>the</strong> scripts that were marked by senior markersduring memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s.There was a register to c<strong>on</strong>trol <strong>the</strong> movement <strong>of</strong> scripts.Dummy scripts were used to train markers so as to streng<strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> security <strong>of</strong>scripts.Markers were searched as <strong>the</strong>y left <strong>the</strong> marking venue to make sure noscripts were removed from <strong>the</strong> marking centre.At Merensky High School <strong>the</strong> security at <strong>the</strong> marking rooms allowed somevisitors to enter without being searched.Scripts were transported to and from <strong>the</strong> marking centre by outsourced361
ProvinceMpumalangaNor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeNorth WestWestern CapeFindingstrucks with security guards and surveillance systems.C<strong>on</strong>trol <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> movement <strong>of</strong> scripts at <strong>the</strong> marking centre was very tight,with scripts being signed for in a register at every change <strong>of</strong> hands.Access c<strong>on</strong>trol and security was tight.Guards were <strong>on</strong> duty in two shifts, night and day.There were unspecified security lapses at Rob Ferreira, Lydenburg andSybrandt van Niekerk high schools.Strict measures were in place regarding <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trol <strong>of</strong> scripts at all levels.Registers were signed whenever scripts changed hands.No scripts were allowed to leave <strong>the</strong> centre.Security was tight at all three centres.Guards were <strong>on</strong> duty day and night.Markers and <strong>of</strong>ficials were issued with identity cards.Strict c<strong>on</strong>trol was exercised over scripts at every point.There were registers to sign when scripts changed hands.Scripts that were taken for pre-marking were subject to strict security.Photocopies were made for <strong>the</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>.Security was very tight and all vehicles were searched.All <strong>of</strong>ficials wore name tags for identificati<strong>on</strong>.Scripts were handled with utmost security.Copies or dummies were used for training purposes.Security was tight. Access to <strong>the</strong> marking centre was limited to <strong>on</strong>e sidegate where <strong>on</strong>ly people with accredited identity tags were allowed toenter.All bags and briefcases were searched to ensure <strong>the</strong> security <strong>of</strong> scripts.Additi<strong>on</strong>al measures were put in place to c<strong>on</strong>trol any disrupti<strong>on</strong> that mightoccur as a result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> closing <strong>of</strong> some schools.The delivery and collecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> scripts to and from various marking points, aswell as <strong>the</strong>ir storage, were carefully m<strong>on</strong>itored and documented.Scripts and documents were transported to and from <strong>the</strong> Western CapeEducati<strong>on</strong> Department (WCED) <strong>of</strong>fices by c<strong>on</strong>tracted couriers.A member <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> WCED examinati<strong>on</strong>s staff accompanied eachc<strong>on</strong>signment.New WCED regulati<strong>on</strong>s were in place to c<strong>on</strong>trol and document <strong>the</strong> flow <strong>of</strong>scripts.Each marker had a computer-generated code number which was usedthroughout so that <strong>the</strong> marker(s) <strong>of</strong> any batch could be identified.5.2.4 Appointment <strong>of</strong> markers and administrative/examinati<strong>on</strong> assistantsProvinceEastern CapeFindingsUnemployed youths, unemployed teachers and tertiary students wereemployed as examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants.Applicati<strong>on</strong>s for markers were advertised by circular.362
ProvinceFindingsAppointments were c<strong>on</strong>firmed in writing.Free StateGautengKwaZulu-NatalLimpopoTo be appointed <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants had to be in at least <strong>the</strong>sec<strong>on</strong>d year <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir studies at an instituti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> higher learning. They shouldbe studying Accounting, Ma<strong>the</strong>matics, or for a teaching qualificati<strong>on</strong>. Theyshould also preferably reside in <strong>the</strong> vicinity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking centre.To be appointed, <strong>the</strong> markers had to have at least a sec<strong>on</strong>d-year-levelqualificati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> subject in questi<strong>on</strong>. They should also have experience inteaching <strong>the</strong> subject at Grade 12 level.All examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants were students studying at tertiary instituti<strong>on</strong>s and<strong>the</strong>y were checked for criminal records.The preferred faculties from where <strong>the</strong>se students were drawn wereMa<strong>the</strong>matics and Applied Ma<strong>the</strong>matics, as well as <strong>the</strong> Accountingdiscipline.Markers had to be teaching <strong>the</strong> subject at Grade 12 level and must havetaught <strong>the</strong> subject for at least <strong>the</strong> past two years. These markers had to beequipped with a qualificati<strong>on</strong> which would enable <strong>the</strong>m to teach at thatlevel, for example at least at sec<strong>on</strong>d-year degree level.There is a system for evaluating markers as <strong>the</strong>y carry out <strong>the</strong>ir duties. Thissystem makes it easy to reappoint experienced markers.N<strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking pers<strong>on</strong>nel were subjected to any competency test.The criteria for <strong>the</strong> appointment <strong>of</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants and markerswere adhered to except for <strong>the</strong> competency test which was not d<strong>on</strong>e.All appointments for both markers and examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants were madethree weeks before <strong>the</strong> commencement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking process. Letterswere sent out to inform all those who were successful to <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> to <strong>the</strong>marking centres <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> dates reflected in <strong>the</strong> letters.The Assessment Unit Secti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> GDE was also resp<strong>on</strong>sible for <strong>the</strong>finalisati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong> appointments.Examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants were appointed after a competency test.The examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants were trained in general and also in detailc<strong>on</strong>cerning <strong>the</strong> various scripts.There was no competency testing for markers.All appointments for markers were d<strong>on</strong>e in writing but examinati<strong>on</strong>assistants were informed by SMS three days before marking commenced.Only teachers teaching <strong>the</strong> subject were appointed as markers.Appointments were made strictly according to <strong>the</strong> criteria set.In Limpopo, markers and administrative/examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants wereappointed centrally by <strong>the</strong> Head <strong>of</strong> Department.Markers were appointed three m<strong>on</strong>ths in advance while examinati<strong>on</strong>assistants for some centres like Ben Viljoen were appointed two days before<strong>the</strong> day scheduled for marking.Examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants were unemployed graduates and university students,who resp<strong>on</strong>ded to an advertisement. Gender was taken into account.Strict selecti<strong>on</strong> procedures were in place.Markers were not subjected to competency tests.363
ProvinceMpumalangaNor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeNorth WestWestern CapeFindingsAt Merensky, some markers did not arrive in time because <strong>of</strong> n<strong>on</strong>-receipt <strong>of</strong>letters <strong>of</strong> appointment. This affected <strong>the</strong> marking pace, but not <strong>the</strong> period<strong>of</strong> marking as planned by <strong>the</strong> provincial department <strong>of</strong> educati<strong>on</strong>.Strict and c<strong>on</strong>sistent criteria were maintained for <strong>the</strong> appointment <strong>of</strong>markers and examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants.Ten per cent <strong>of</strong> markers were appointed from Grade 11 teachers.No competency tests were administered.Tests were written by markers not for appointment purposes, but to identifygaps in <strong>the</strong>ir knowledge and training.Appointment letters for markers were sent out <strong>on</strong> 2 November, butappointment <strong>of</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants was d<strong>on</strong>e very late.The criteria for <strong>the</strong> appointment <strong>of</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants and markerswere strictly applied.Tertiary students and unemployed educators were used as examinati<strong>on</strong>assistants.Markers were appointed from teachers currently teaching <strong>the</strong> subjects, orwith extended experience <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject.Between 10 and 40% were novice markers. The intenti<strong>on</strong> was to build apool <strong>of</strong> competent markers for <strong>the</strong> future.Competency testing was not d<strong>on</strong>e during recruitment, but during training.Examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants had to be at least sec<strong>on</strong>d-year students at tertiaryinstituti<strong>on</strong>s, and had to be computer literate. Appointments were made inwriting in October 2012.Marking posts were advertised and teachers applied with a CV. These weresifted and <strong>the</strong> most suitable were appointed. Previous performance inmarking was taken into account.In 2012, competency tests for <strong>the</strong> 18 largest subjects were undertakenbetween February and August.Appointment was by means <strong>of</strong> a c<strong>on</strong>tract between <strong>the</strong> marker and <strong>the</strong>WCED, which included a c<strong>on</strong>fidentiality clause.5.2.5 Training <strong>of</strong> markersProvinceEastern CapeFree StateFindingsTraining was mostly in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> memo discussi<strong>on</strong>s.Markers had to prepare <strong>the</strong>ir own memoranda beforehand. These wereexchanged, discussed and corrected, and <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> scripts andmemoranda were distributed and discussed, and some practice markingwas d<strong>on</strong>e.It appears that this provincial educati<strong>on</strong> department did not make use <strong>of</strong>dummy scripts so that all markers <strong>of</strong> a subject could practise <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> samescripts.During <strong>the</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>the</strong> chief markers andinternal moderators were trained <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> memorandum andevery aspect to do with <strong>the</strong> allocati<strong>on</strong> and transfer <strong>of</strong> marks. They were364
ProvinceGautengKwaZulu-NatalLimpopoFindingsalso trained <strong>on</strong> how to deal with irregularities.Discussi<strong>on</strong>s were held about <strong>the</strong> scripts that had been pre-marked. Dummyscripts were <strong>the</strong>n marked, followed by ano<strong>the</strong>r round <strong>of</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>s.After <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>the</strong> final memorandum was prepared and signed <strong>of</strong>f.The chief markers and internal moderators cascaded <strong>the</strong> training to <strong>the</strong>senior markers at <strong>the</strong> marking centres before <strong>the</strong> arrival <strong>of</strong> markers.The senior markers, assisted by <strong>the</strong> chief markers and internal moderators,<strong>the</strong>n cascaded <strong>the</strong> training to <strong>the</strong> markers. The training took about fivehours.Markers were trained in preparati<strong>on</strong> for marking. All markers were trainedby chief markers, deputy chief markers, senior markers and internalmoderators <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> first day <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking process.The general training was always led by <strong>the</strong> chief markers and internalmoderators and <strong>the</strong>n markers were divided into groups <strong>of</strong> five with a seniormarker as <strong>the</strong> head <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> group.Fur<strong>the</strong>r and detailed training <strong>the</strong>n c<strong>on</strong>tinued in <strong>the</strong>se smaller groups. Thesegroups are usually easy to manage.Exemplars were used where each marker answered <strong>the</strong> whole paper and<strong>the</strong>n discussi<strong>on</strong>s would follow where additi<strong>on</strong>s or syn<strong>on</strong>yms were added ifnecessary and agreed up<strong>on</strong> by <strong>the</strong> examiner, <strong>the</strong> internal moderator and<strong>the</strong> external moderator, who would be informed because in very manycases he/she did not attend such discussi<strong>on</strong>s.Novice markers were m<strong>on</strong>itored very closely during <strong>the</strong> entire process.Markers were made to understand where to put ticks as well as how to addand transfer marks properly.Markers who could not cope with <strong>the</strong> workload or who were seen to beunderperforming were usually taken aside by <strong>the</strong>ir seniors and retrained <strong>on</strong>a <strong>on</strong>e-<strong>on</strong>-<strong>on</strong>e basis until <strong>the</strong>ir skills improved.If <strong>the</strong>y c<strong>on</strong>tinued making mistakes, <strong>the</strong>y were given questi<strong>on</strong>s which wereeasier to mark.The durati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> training differed from subject to subject but <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> averageit was between three and six hours.Markers were trained <strong>on</strong> 2 December 2012 by chief markers, senior markersand moderators.Training involved a memo discussi<strong>on</strong>, methods <strong>of</strong> marking, mark allocati<strong>on</strong>,alternative answers, irregularities, script c<strong>on</strong>trol and practice marking.Minutes or notes were kept.Each training sessi<strong>on</strong> took about a day.After <strong>the</strong> memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong> markers were given a dummy script tomark for fur<strong>the</strong>r training.Examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants were given orientati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> entire process <strong>of</strong>marking and capturing <strong>of</strong> marks both inside and outside <strong>the</strong> scripts.Markers were appointed three m<strong>on</strong>ths before <strong>the</strong> start <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking andboth examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants and markers were informed in writing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>irappointment by <strong>the</strong> Head <strong>of</strong> Department.At Settlers and Ben Viljoen <strong>the</strong> provincial department requested centre365
ProvinceMpumalangaNor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeNorth WestWestern CapeFindingsmanagers and administrati<strong>on</strong> to c<strong>on</strong>clude <strong>the</strong> process and inform <strong>the</strong>examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir appointment, as <strong>the</strong> department’steleph<strong>on</strong>es were not working.Markers arrived in <strong>the</strong> morning <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> day <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> start <strong>of</strong> marking, that is, 3December 2012. The training for markers started at 12h00 at all centres inLimpopo (3 December 2012). They were <strong>the</strong>n trained by <strong>the</strong> chief markerand deputy chief markers.The first sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marking training for markers at Tivumbeni and Makhadostarted <strong>on</strong> 19 November 2012; it lasted for six hours at Tivumbeni and eighthours at Makhado.After <strong>the</strong> memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong> markers were given a dummy script tomark. After marking this script, markers assembled and went through <strong>the</strong>marked script with <strong>the</strong> chief marker and <strong>the</strong> moderator.Training included a discussi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking code <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>duct.Markers were also trained in <strong>the</strong> handling <strong>of</strong> irregularities.Training <strong>of</strong> markers began <strong>on</strong> arrival and c<strong>on</strong>tinued for <strong>the</strong> whole day.This c<strong>on</strong>sisted <strong>of</strong> comprehensive memo discussi<strong>on</strong>s and practice marking <strong>of</strong>dummy scripts.Training at <strong>the</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s were cascaded to <strong>the</strong>marking centres <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> first day.Marking practise was d<strong>on</strong>e as part <strong>of</strong> training.Training lasted up to eight hours.Training began as so<strong>on</strong> as markers had arrived and lasted from two hoursto a full day.The nati<strong>on</strong>al memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s were c<strong>on</strong>ducted questi<strong>on</strong> byquesti<strong>on</strong>.At <strong>the</strong> provincial discussi<strong>on</strong>s no changes were made.Incompetent and novice markers were given support throughout.A “Manual for marking <strong>of</strong>ficials” had been developed.The Director: Assessment Management held a briefing sessi<strong>on</strong> with <strong>the</strong> chiefmarkers.Training <strong>of</strong> markers was provided <strong>on</strong> 4 and 5 December 2012.Markers were required to mark three dummy scripts for discussi<strong>on</strong>.5.2.6 Marking procedureProvinceEastern CapeFindingsTraining took place <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> first day.Dummy scripts were used for this purpose.Practise marking took place to ensure c<strong>on</strong>sistency.The flow <strong>of</strong> scripts was strictly c<strong>on</strong>trolled.Moderati<strong>on</strong> was d<strong>on</strong>e c<strong>on</strong>tinuously from <strong>the</strong> first day.The examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants checked scripts to ensure that everything hadbeen marked and that totals were correct.366
ProvinceFree StateGautengKwaZulu-NatalFindingsAt provincial level <strong>the</strong> memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s were held first as <strong>the</strong> basisfor <strong>the</strong> training <strong>of</strong> markersMinutes <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s were not kept.At <strong>the</strong> marking centres answer scripts were received and checked by <strong>the</strong>chief markers.From <strong>the</strong> chief markers <strong>the</strong> scripts went to <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants, <strong>the</strong>nto <strong>the</strong> senior markers who distributed <strong>the</strong>m to <strong>the</strong> markers.The centres in <strong>the</strong> province followed a questi<strong>on</strong>-by-questi<strong>on</strong> approach tomarking.The senior markers, chief markers and internal moderators were <strong>the</strong>re tosupervise marking. They also ensured that marks were allocated correctlyand <strong>the</strong>y were assisted in doing so by <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants.The scripts followed <strong>the</strong> same route back to <strong>the</strong> chief marker and <strong>the</strong>ywere checked at every point and signed for as <strong>the</strong>y changed hands.Memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s were held <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> first day <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking process.Minutes are usually not kept but notes are written <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> copies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>memorandum. No changes were made to <strong>the</strong> original memorandum.On <strong>the</strong> first day <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking process, <strong>the</strong> chief marker, assisted by <strong>the</strong>o<strong>the</strong>r markers, counted and recorded all <strong>the</strong> answer books that <strong>the</strong>y wereabout to mark. The exact figure was <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed to <strong>the</strong> centre managerimmediately.Marking was d<strong>on</strong>e strictly questi<strong>on</strong> by questi<strong>on</strong>, except at <strong>the</strong> Krugersdorpcentre where secti<strong>on</strong>-by-secti<strong>on</strong> marking was adopted.All centres visited by <strong>Umalusi</strong> m<strong>on</strong>itors had c<strong>on</strong>trol rooms from where centremanagers operated.Each subject or chief marker had a smaller c<strong>on</strong>trol room from where <strong>the</strong>yalso operated. This made <strong>the</strong> entire organisati<strong>on</strong> manageable.There was strict supervisi<strong>on</strong> at all <strong>the</strong> centres. If <strong>the</strong> internal moderatorfound that candidates had been ei<strong>the</strong>r advantaged or disadvantaged,<strong>the</strong>y would first c<strong>on</strong>sult with <strong>the</strong> senior and <strong>the</strong> chief markers in charge and,if <strong>the</strong>y agreed, <strong>the</strong> moderator would <strong>the</strong>n order that <strong>the</strong> batch be remarkedand <strong>the</strong> marks be adjusted if necessary.Markers initialled <strong>the</strong> answers books.All errors in calculati<strong>on</strong>s and <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> mark sheet were corrected by <strong>the</strong>examiner or <strong>the</strong> chief marker.Capturing <strong>of</strong> all marks took place at <strong>the</strong> GDE assessment unit.No changes were made to <strong>the</strong> marking guidelines.The flow <strong>of</strong> scripts into, within and out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking rooms was very strictlyrecorded and c<strong>on</strong>trolled in all instances.All centres had a script c<strong>on</strong>trol room managed by <strong>the</strong> script c<strong>on</strong>trolmanager in administrati<strong>on</strong>. Marking venues all had script c<strong>on</strong>trolrooms/areas, depending <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> scripts being marked, fromwhere c<strong>on</strong>trol was exercised by chief markers or deputy chief markers.During <strong>the</strong> entire process <strong>the</strong> exact locati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> every individual script couldbe identified. Script c<strong>on</strong>trol was very precise, with <strong>the</strong> exact locati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>every individual script known through <strong>the</strong> route form.367
ProvinceLimpopoMpumalangaFindingsScripts were marked questi<strong>on</strong> by questi<strong>on</strong>. If a candidate answered bothopti<strong>on</strong>al questi<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>the</strong> first <strong>on</strong>e would be marked and <strong>the</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>d <strong>on</strong>ecancelled. If a questi<strong>on</strong> was answered twice, <strong>the</strong> first <strong>on</strong>e was marked.Correct allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marks was checked during <strong>the</strong> various levels <strong>of</strong>moderati<strong>on</strong> and also by <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants.The marking process was supervised by <strong>the</strong> chief markers, deputy chiefmarkers, senior markers, internal moderators and <strong>the</strong>n finally checked by<strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants. All those who marked or moderated attacheda code or signature which identified <strong>the</strong>m.When errors were picked up <strong>the</strong>y were corrected and <strong>the</strong> batchrechecked.For underperforming markers remedial acti<strong>on</strong> was taken and if <strong>the</strong>re wasno improvement a change in <strong>the</strong> tasks given was recommended.Markers received training <strong>on</strong> marking before going into memorandumdiscussi<strong>on</strong>s; no changes were made to <strong>the</strong> memorandum as <strong>the</strong>y weremade in Pretoria during <strong>the</strong> training <strong>of</strong> chief markers.The minutes <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se discussi<strong>on</strong>s are kept at Pietersburg High School. Centremanagement had meetings every morning at 07h30 to discuss daily<str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s, if any.The chief marker collected and signed for <strong>the</strong> scripts from <strong>the</strong> storeroomc<strong>on</strong>trol manager.Various registers were kept to c<strong>on</strong>trol <strong>the</strong> flow <strong>of</strong> scripts from <strong>the</strong> storeroomto chief marker to deputy chief marker and from senior markers andinternal moderator back to <strong>the</strong> storeroom.Marking was d<strong>on</strong>e questi<strong>on</strong> by questi<strong>on</strong> but markers were trained in allquesti<strong>on</strong>s before <strong>the</strong>y were allocated to a questi<strong>on</strong>.In some subjects a group marked more than <strong>on</strong>e questi<strong>on</strong> as somequesti<strong>on</strong> were short, for example at Ben Vorster.If a candidate answered both opti<strong>on</strong>al questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>the</strong> first to be answeredwas c<strong>on</strong>sidered. And if a questi<strong>on</strong> was answered twice <strong>the</strong> first was alsoc<strong>on</strong>sidered.The senior markers supervised <strong>the</strong> marking with <strong>the</strong> help <strong>of</strong> deputy chiefmarkers and chief markers through <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> scripts.Markers/senior markers/chief markers attached <strong>the</strong>ir signatures <strong>on</strong> answerscripts. At Pietersburg High school <strong>the</strong> markers, deputy markers and seniormarkers were given codes to enter, in additi<strong>on</strong> to <strong>the</strong>ir signatures.Errors in marking which were detected were corrected at every stage <strong>of</strong>checking and ultimately approved by <strong>the</strong> chief marker. The examinati<strong>on</strong>assistants <strong>on</strong>ly check <strong>the</strong> transfer <strong>of</strong> marks to <strong>the</strong> cover page but do notmake any changes.The appropriate procedures were followed, with each senior marker takingresp<strong>on</strong>sibility for a group <strong>of</strong> markers.Where errors were found scripts were referred back for re-marking, and <strong>the</strong>marker was retrained where necessary.Examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants played an important role in ensuring that noquesti<strong>on</strong>s were overlooked, or errors made in adding and transferring <strong>of</strong>368
ProvinceFindingsmarks.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeNorth WestWestern CapeMarking was d<strong>on</strong>e under <strong>the</strong> supervisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> senior markers, chiefmarkers and internal moderators.Examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants checked every script to ensure that all answers hadbeen marked.They also checked <strong>the</strong> totalling and transfer <strong>of</strong> marks. Many errors werefound and it appeared that markers had not checked <strong>the</strong>ir own work.Each senior marker worked with five markers.The flow <strong>of</strong> scripts between <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trol room and markers was handledwith extreme care.Depending <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> paper, <strong>the</strong> marking was d<strong>on</strong>e questi<strong>on</strong> byquesti<strong>on</strong> or secti<strong>on</strong> by secti<strong>on</strong>.All <strong>of</strong>ficials signed each script <strong>the</strong>y had marked or moderated.Examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants checked that all questi<strong>on</strong>s were marked and that allmarks were totalled and transferred correctly.Marking was d<strong>on</strong>e under <strong>the</strong> supervisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> senior markers, chief markersand internal moderators.All scripts were checked by examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants to ensure that allquesti<strong>on</strong>s had been marked and that totalling and transfer <strong>of</strong> marks werecorrect.5.2.7 Internal moderati<strong>on</strong>ProvinceEastern CapeFree StateGautengFindingInternal moderators were present at <strong>the</strong> marking centres throughout.Internal moderati<strong>on</strong> was c<strong>on</strong>ducted <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> chief markers’, senior markers’and markers’ work.Batches were returned for re-marking if c<strong>on</strong>sistent errors were found.Three levels <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> took place.Internal moderators moderated scripts <strong>of</strong> markers, but also those from each<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r levels <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>.The internal moderators were present at <strong>the</strong> marking centres all <strong>the</strong> timeduring marking.The internal moderators were resp<strong>on</strong>sible for moderating scripts, m<strong>on</strong>itoringmarkers’ performance and writing <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s.The internal moderators had to moderate a minimum <strong>of</strong> 10% <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong>scripts, which included scripts <strong>of</strong> high, medium and low achievers.The GDE internal moderator was expected to be at <strong>the</strong> marking centre <strong>on</strong>a daily basis from <strong>the</strong> first to <strong>the</strong> last day <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking process.The role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> internal moderator was to quality assure <strong>the</strong> entire process<strong>of</strong> marking, that is, to make sure that marking is undertaken fairly,accurately and according to regulati<strong>on</strong>s laid down by <strong>the</strong> DBE.Almost all internal moderators who moderated <strong>the</strong> GDE scripts preferred<strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>-by-questi<strong>on</strong> model <strong>of</strong> moderating.369
ProvinceKwaZulu-NatalLimpopoMpumalangaNor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeNorth WestFindingThere were four levels in <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> scripts: senior marker, deputychief marker, chief marker and internal moderator. The internal moderatormoderated <strong>the</strong> scripts <strong>of</strong> all markers using a random sampling method toreach every marker in <strong>the</strong> room.The minimum percentage <strong>of</strong> scripts to be moderated by any internalmoderator would be 10%, but at this became impossible <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> scriptsexceeded a total <strong>of</strong> 65 000. All final marking memos were signed by ei<strong>the</strong>rexaminers or external moderators or both.The memoranda used were signed copies.The internal moderators were available during <strong>the</strong> entire marking process.They moderated 100 scripts that had been marked and covered a spread<strong>of</strong> marks (0–39; 40–69; 70–100) and writing centres.The quality and accuracy <strong>of</strong> marking was checked.Moderators also analysed <strong>the</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> learners and evaluated <strong>the</strong>papers.From this analysis two <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were written: <strong>on</strong>e was sent to <strong>the</strong> province,which, in turn, provided feedback to educators and subject advisors <strong>of</strong>problem areas in <strong>the</strong> various subjects. The sec<strong>on</strong>d <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> went to <strong>the</strong> DBEfor standardisati<strong>on</strong> purposes.Moderati<strong>on</strong> was usually d<strong>on</strong>e per answer script; although at <strong>the</strong>re was afocus <strong>on</strong> a specific questi<strong>on</strong>.Moderati<strong>on</strong> was also d<strong>on</strong>e at various levels by chief markers, deputy chiefmarkers and senior markers.The final memoranda used were signed <strong>of</strong>f and dated.Internal moderators take resp<strong>on</strong>sibility for <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> marking.They moderate scripts that are both moderated and not moderated,taking 10% as a quota that should be moderated.In some subjects, for example languages such as English, Sepedi, Xits<strong>on</strong>gaand Tshivenda, <strong>on</strong>e moderator was moderating P1, 2 and 3. This led to <strong>the</strong>internal moderator for English having to moderate at three centres, BenVorster, Merensky and Tivumbeni.The following levels <strong>of</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> marking were observed: seniormarkers moderating scripts <strong>of</strong> markers, and chief markers checking <strong>the</strong>accuracy <strong>of</strong> marking by markers and senior markers.Moderators moderated <strong>the</strong> whole script, sampling 10% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> markedscripts by looking at <strong>the</strong> different levels <strong>of</strong> performance. The sampleincluded moderated scripts and scripts not moderated.Internal moderators were present throughout.Between 10 and 20% <strong>of</strong> scripts were moderated, with some focus <strong>on</strong>difficult areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> memorandum, and weaker markers.Internal moderators were present throughout.Their task was to check and c<strong>on</strong>trol <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> marking.Approximately 10% <strong>of</strong> scripts was moderated.The regulati<strong>on</strong>s were followed by <strong>the</strong> internal moderators who moderatedrandom selecti<strong>on</strong>s from markers, senior markers and even from chiefmarkers.370
ProvinceWestern CapeFindingThis was a vital quality assurance exercise, to ensure that <strong>the</strong> seniors werecarrying out <strong>the</strong>ir task properly.Each moderator was expected to be present for eight hours <strong>of</strong> every day<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking sessi<strong>on</strong>.The internal moderator was <strong>the</strong> chief quality assurance <strong>of</strong>ficer andmoderated random samples <strong>of</strong> scripts.There was c<strong>on</strong>tinuous interacti<strong>on</strong> between <strong>the</strong> internal moderator and <strong>the</strong>chief marker.5.2.8 External moderati<strong>on</strong>ProvinceEastern CapeFree StateGautengKwaZulu-NatalLimpopoMpumalangaFindingThe samples for external moderati<strong>on</strong> were selected in accordance withcriteria set by <strong>Umalusi</strong>.When selecting samples, <strong>the</strong> criteria were adhered to without deviati<strong>on</strong>The final marking memorandum was always included with <strong>the</strong> selectedsamples.The samples for external moderati<strong>on</strong> were selected in accordance withcriteria set by <strong>Umalusi</strong>.When selecting samples, <strong>the</strong> criteria were adhered to without deviati<strong>on</strong>.The final marking memorandum was always included with <strong>the</strong> selectedsamples.The marking centres sampled <strong>the</strong> scripts according to <strong>the</strong> categoriesdefined by <strong>Umalusi</strong>.The criteria were adhered to and <strong>the</strong> final marking memorandum wasincluded in <strong>the</strong> box or boxes c<strong>on</strong>taining <strong>the</strong> scripts.A different approach was adopted by <strong>Umalusi</strong> this time around with<strong>Umalusi</strong> moderators coming round to <strong>the</strong> centres to moderate <strong>the</strong> scripts.For external moderati<strong>on</strong> 20 scripts were selected with a specified spread <strong>of</strong>marks from top, middle and <strong>the</strong> low achievers.External moderati<strong>on</strong> was carried out <strong>on</strong> site at Eshowe High, InandaSeminary, Port Shepst<strong>on</strong>e Primary and James Nxumalo High.These external moderators were from <strong>Umalusi</strong> and DBE and <strong>the</strong> durati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong>ir stay varied between two and five days. The final markingmemorandum is included.Samples for external moderati<strong>on</strong> were selected according to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong>guidelines and criteria. As m<strong>on</strong>itors were at <strong>the</strong> centres <strong>the</strong>y were shownrequests for sampled scripts to be submitted to <strong>Umalusi</strong>.The <strong>Umalusi</strong> m<strong>on</strong>itor for Business Studies arrived at Hoërskool Warmbad tomoderate <strong>the</strong> scripts.Scripts were sent to <strong>Umalusi</strong> as per <strong>the</strong>ir criteria.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeOn-site verificati<strong>on</strong> was d<strong>on</strong>e by <strong>Umalusi</strong> so scripts did not have to besubmitted for external moderati<strong>on</strong>.371
ProvinceNorth WestWestern CapeFindingSamples were selected according to <strong>Umalusi</strong>’s criteria and couriered to<strong>the</strong>m for external moderati<strong>on</strong>.Twenty scripts per paper were selected according to <strong>Umalusi</strong>’s criteria, aswell as six unmoderated scripts.These were forwarded to <strong>Umalusi</strong> by courier.5.2.9 M<strong>on</strong>itoring <strong>of</strong> markingProvinceEastern CapeFree StateGautengKwaZulu-NatalFindingsThe m<strong>on</strong>itoring <strong>of</strong> marking was d<strong>on</strong>e by <strong>the</strong> senior markers, chief markerand internal moderator.Under-performing markers were taken in hand and given more training.If this did not help <strong>the</strong>y were replaced or moved to ano<strong>the</strong>r aspect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>assessment functi<strong>on</strong>.The performance <strong>of</strong> markers at all marking centres was m<strong>on</strong>itored by <strong>the</strong>senior markers, internal moderators and chief markers.A template/form for evaluating <strong>the</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> markers wascompleted for each marker at all centres.M<strong>on</strong>itoring and evaluati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> markers was also d<strong>on</strong>e though <strong>the</strong>moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> scripts.Markers who were found to be underperforming were assisted by <strong>the</strong> seniormarkers for development purposes.The process <strong>of</strong> evaluati<strong>on</strong> could lead to markers being promoted to chiefmarkers and internal moderators.Markers who c<strong>on</strong>sistently underperformed might not be c<strong>on</strong>sidered forappointment for <strong>the</strong> next marking sessi<strong>on</strong> and some might be dismissedfrom <strong>the</strong> centre.Markers’ performance was m<strong>on</strong>itored by chief markers, deputy chiefmarkers, senior markers and internal moderators.This process <strong>of</strong> m<strong>on</strong>itoring was by way <strong>of</strong> moderating <strong>the</strong> scripts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>markers.All underperforming markers were quickly identified by <strong>the</strong>ir immediateseniors and <strong>the</strong>y were <strong>the</strong>n taken aside in order to be retrained. Thetraining at this stage became <strong>on</strong>e <strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>e and <strong>the</strong>y were <strong>the</strong>n givenano<strong>the</strong>r chance to c<strong>on</strong>tinue marking.If <strong>the</strong>y could still not cope with <strong>the</strong> workload, <strong>the</strong>y were moved to questi<strong>on</strong>swhich were easier to mark. The last resort would be for <strong>the</strong>m to berequested to leave <strong>the</strong> marking centre.It was comm<strong>on</strong>ly known that if markers performed badly in <strong>the</strong>ir work <strong>the</strong>ywould not be c<strong>on</strong>sidered for selecti<strong>on</strong> for <strong>the</strong> following marking sessi<strong>on</strong>. TheGDE has an evaluati<strong>on</strong> form <strong>on</strong> which markers are judged.M<strong>on</strong>itoring <strong>of</strong> marking was d<strong>on</strong>e by chief markers, deputy chief markersand senior markers.The performance <strong>of</strong> markers was measured in terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir accuracy,quality <strong>of</strong> marking, interpretati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> answers and rate <strong>of</strong> marking.372
ProvinceLimpopoMpumalangaNor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeNorth WestWestern CapeFindingsDiscussi<strong>on</strong>s were held with underperforming markers, advice was given ando<strong>the</strong>r remedial acti<strong>on</strong> taken. There was also <strong>the</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> changingmarking tasks.It would seem that <strong>the</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> markers had no influence <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>selecti<strong>on</strong> process for future marking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> main end-<strong>of</strong>-year examinati<strong>on</strong>s.Markers’ performance was m<strong>on</strong>itored by <strong>the</strong> senior markers, deputy chiefmarker (where applicable), chief marker and internal moderator.Underperforming markers are retained but shifted to o<strong>the</strong>r secti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>marking process, for example as examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants.Chief markers and moderators <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> underperforming markers so that <strong>the</strong>ymay not be reappointed in future.A template is used to evaluate marker performance.The work <strong>of</strong> markers is m<strong>on</strong>itored by senior markers, chief markers andinternal moderators.If a marker was struggling, extra training was provided.Extra moderati<strong>on</strong> was <strong>the</strong>n d<strong>on</strong>e until <strong>the</strong> marker had caught up.If all else failed <strong>the</strong> marker was given lower-order questi<strong>on</strong>s to mark.M<strong>on</strong>itoring was d<strong>on</strong>e by senior markers, chief markers and internalmoderators through <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> scripts.Under-performing markers were m<strong>on</strong>itored and sometimes given easierquesti<strong>on</strong>s to mark.At <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking sessi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s had to be submitted <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>markers’ performance.The senior staff were resp<strong>on</strong>sible for quality assurance, keeping a strict eye<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> work d<strong>on</strong>e at each level.Implementati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking plan ensured <strong>the</strong> maintenance <strong>of</strong>acceptable quality.M<strong>on</strong>itoring was d<strong>on</strong>e by <strong>the</strong> management team for each subject.Poor markers were identified and required to re-mark whole bundles ifnecessary.Report forms <strong>on</strong> each marker were completed, and <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>the</strong> best markerswould be c<strong>on</strong>sidered for appointment in future.5.2.10 Handling <strong>of</strong> irregularitiesProvinceEastern CapeFindingsThere was a provincial Irregularities Committee in place, and an irregularityinvestigator for every two centres.Markers were trained to be aware <strong>of</strong> what c<strong>on</strong>stituted an irregularity.If an irregularity was suspected it was <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed to <strong>the</strong> senior marker, andan irregularity <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> was completed.This <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> was investigated by <strong>the</strong> irregularity investigator, and if found tobe significant, was <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed to <strong>the</strong> Irregularities Committee.An irregularities register was kept at each marking centre.373
ProvinceFree StateGautengKwaZulu-NatalLimpopoMpumalangaNor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeFindingsMarkers were aware <strong>of</strong> what c<strong>on</strong>stituted an irregularity as <strong>the</strong>y had beentrained <strong>on</strong> this aspect <strong>of</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>s during memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s.They were also aware <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> procedures to be followed when <strong>the</strong>ydetected an irregularityIrregularity registers were kept at all centres.Irregularity committees were not set up at all <strong>the</strong> centres.All markers were aware <strong>of</strong> what c<strong>on</strong>stitutes an irregularity.Markers were made aware <strong>of</strong> this when <strong>the</strong>y were trained for <strong>the</strong> markingprocess. All markers were aware <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> procedures to be followed <strong>on</strong>ce anirregularity had been identified or detected.The marker immediately informs his/her senior, <strong>the</strong> senior in turn informs <strong>the</strong>examiner/chief marker and <strong>the</strong> examiner/chief marker informs <strong>the</strong> deputycentre manager (pr<strong>of</strong>essi<strong>on</strong>al) who is always in <strong>the</strong> main c<strong>on</strong>trol room toreceive this type <strong>of</strong> informati<strong>on</strong>. Finally <strong>the</strong> deputy centre manager(pr<strong>of</strong>essi<strong>on</strong>al) immediately informs <strong>the</strong> chairman <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> provincialIrregularities Committee by which time <strong>the</strong> informati<strong>on</strong> is already lodged in<strong>the</strong> irregularity register.There were some technical irregularities that were <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed but <strong>the</strong> moreserious <strong>on</strong>es were still in <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> being analysed by <strong>the</strong> committee.The final <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing would take place at a nati<strong>on</strong>al meeting which would beheld <strong>on</strong> 18 December 2012.Only <strong>on</strong>e irregularity was found: a letter was found inside a candidate’sscript which was about <strong>the</strong> candidate’s illness.Markers were aware <strong>of</strong> what c<strong>on</strong>stituted an irregularity and <strong>the</strong> proceduresto be followed. This had formed part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> training process.No irregularities were uncovered except at James Nxumalo where <strong>the</strong>chief marker was going through a script and crib notes were detected.All centres had an irregularities committee chaired by <strong>the</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>siblemanager.During memorandum discussi<strong>on</strong>s and training <strong>of</strong> markers <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>irregularities was discussed.All centres visited in <strong>the</strong> Limpopo Province had an irregularities register andan irregularities committee (pr<strong>of</strong>essi<strong>on</strong>al), c<strong>on</strong>sisting <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> chief markerand internal moderator (at <strong>the</strong> marking centre).For serious irregularities <strong>the</strong>re was committee at <strong>the</strong> provincial level.<str<strong>on</strong>g>Technical</str<strong>on</strong>g> irregularities were solved at <strong>the</strong> marking centre but for seriousirregularities, <strong>the</strong> irregularities committee, which included <strong>the</strong> centremanager (pr<strong>of</strong>essi<strong>on</strong>al), was involved.Various forms were completed by <strong>the</strong> chief marker to <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> seriousirregularities.The regulatory irregularities committee was in place.Markers were trained to recognise irregularities.Only <strong>on</strong>e irregularity was <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed, <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> Tippex in English FAL papersat Nelspruit Private College.Markers were trained to recognise irregularities.374
ProvinceNorth WestWestern CapeFindingsAn irregularities register was kept at each centre by <strong>the</strong> centre manager.Only <strong>on</strong>e serious irregularity was <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed at Kimberley Girls’ High, o<strong>the</strong>rs<str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed were mainly technical irregularities.The province had established an irregularities committee.Markers were trained to recognise irregularities.So far <strong>on</strong>ly technical irregularities had been detected.Procedures for dealing with irregularities were captured in <strong>the</strong> trainingmanual for markers.On suspici<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> an irregularity, an irregularity form had to be completedand submitted for fur<strong>the</strong>r investigati<strong>on</strong>.A script replacement form was inserted in <strong>the</strong> bundle if a script had beenremoved.5.2.11 <strong>Quality</strong> assurance proceduresProvinceEastern CapeFree StateGautengFindingsThe quality <strong>of</strong> marking and handling <strong>of</strong> scripts was assured by seniormarkers, chief markers and internal moderators, and checked byexaminati<strong>on</strong> assistants.Copies were made <strong>of</strong> all mark sheets up<strong>on</strong> receipt and before <strong>the</strong> markingstarted.Scripts were checked to see that all questi<strong>on</strong>s had been marked and thatcalculati<strong>on</strong>s and transfer <strong>of</strong> marks were d<strong>on</strong>e correctly.The capturing <strong>of</strong> marks was d<strong>on</strong>e at a capturing centre.The senior markers, chief markers, internal moderators and examinati<strong>on</strong>assistants were resp<strong>on</strong>sible for checking whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> entire script had beenmarked; each questi<strong>on</strong> had a total; marks were captured correctly; markshad been transferred to <strong>the</strong> cover; and <strong>the</strong> mark sheet was correct.The internal moderators and senior markers also quality-assured <strong>the</strong>marking and entry <strong>of</strong> marks as <strong>the</strong> scripts went through <strong>the</strong>m.Scripts were transported by trucks fitted with tracker systems to and from<strong>the</strong> marking centre. The trucks were escorted by departmental <strong>of</strong>ficials.Mark sheets were transported by departmental <strong>of</strong>ficials to <strong>the</strong> provincialhead <strong>of</strong>fices where data capturing took place.During moderati<strong>on</strong>, senior markers and deputy senior markers went through<strong>the</strong> entire script.The examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants were employed to check that <strong>the</strong> entire scripthad been marked. They also totalled up <strong>the</strong> marks <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> and<strong>the</strong>n c<strong>on</strong>trolled <strong>the</strong>m.The senior and <strong>the</strong> deputy chief verified marking.The sec<strong>on</strong>d c<strong>on</strong>troller was resp<strong>on</strong>sible for transferring marks from <strong>the</strong> coverpage to <strong>the</strong> mark sheet.If a mark sheet was lost, <strong>the</strong> chief marker <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed <strong>the</strong> matter to <strong>the</strong> centremanager and <strong>the</strong> centre manager in turn <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed <strong>the</strong> matter to <strong>the</strong>assessment unit and a new mark sheet would <strong>the</strong>n be generated.375
ProvinceFindingsThe final capture <strong>of</strong> all marks took place at <strong>the</strong> GDE head <strong>of</strong>fice.KwaZulu-NatalLimpopoMpumalangaNor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeChecking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> scripts took place at many levels. Scripts were checked byseniors and sometimes experienced markers were chosen as checkers.Through <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong> processes and <strong>the</strong> checking by <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>assistants, it was ensured that <strong>the</strong> entire script was marked, each questi<strong>on</strong>has a total, that <strong>the</strong> subtotals, totals and <strong>the</strong> final total were correct, that<strong>the</strong> transfer <strong>of</strong> marks to <strong>the</strong> cover was correct, and finally, that <strong>the</strong> transfer<strong>of</strong> marks to <strong>the</strong> mark sheet was correct.Team leaders instituted a c<strong>on</strong>trol system to ensure that examinati<strong>on</strong>assistants went through <strong>the</strong> scripts during <strong>the</strong> last checking exercise and <strong>the</strong>team leader could tell at a glance which markers needed to makecorrecti<strong>on</strong>s. This was d<strong>on</strong>e at <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking centres.After <strong>the</strong> checking process, mark sheets were scanned at <strong>the</strong> markingcentre, while <strong>the</strong> capturing <strong>of</strong> individual marks was d<strong>on</strong>e at provincial level.As so<strong>on</strong> as mark sheets became available <strong>the</strong>y were photocopied;subsequently, <strong>on</strong>e copy stayed with <strong>the</strong> batch and <strong>the</strong> originals werecollected by provincial <strong>of</strong>ficials and taken by car to <strong>the</strong> data capturingcentre. If a mark sheet was lost, a copy could <strong>the</strong>n be obtained.At <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking process, marked scripts were returned incovered trucks to <strong>the</strong> districts <strong>the</strong>y had come from.<strong>Quality</strong> assurance procedures were in place to ensure that <strong>the</strong>examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants had checked whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> entire script was marked,each questi<strong>on</strong> had a total, marks were captured per sub-questi<strong>on</strong>/item,subtotals, totals, and final totals were corrected and that <strong>the</strong> transfer <strong>of</strong>marks to <strong>the</strong> cover page was correct. Changes discovered would beeffected by <strong>the</strong> chief marker <strong>on</strong>ly. Provisi<strong>on</strong>al mark sheets are used whereoriginal mark sheets were lost.The truck used to transport scripts was equipped with a tracking andsurveillance system and Grade D security guards.The moderator checked that marks were allocated per sub-questi<strong>on</strong> oritem, and toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> chief marker checked that sub-totals, totalsand <strong>the</strong> final total were correct.The moderator checked to ensure that <strong>the</strong> transfer <strong>of</strong> marks to <strong>the</strong> coverand to <strong>the</strong> mark sheet was accurate and that <strong>the</strong>re were provisi<strong>on</strong>al marksheets for lost mark sheets.<strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> marking and c<strong>on</strong>trol were assured by <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong>assistants.They checked every script to ensure that everything had been marked,totalled and transferred correctly.The staff from <strong>the</strong> senior marker up were resp<strong>on</strong>sible for <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong>marking as such.There were also visits from m<strong>on</strong>itors, although <strong>the</strong> centres where AET scriptswere marked received fewer visits.Markers were expected to check that all questi<strong>on</strong>s had been marked andthat <strong>the</strong> totalling and transfer <strong>of</strong> marks was correct.376
ProvinceNorth WestWestern CapeFindingsThis was rechecked by <strong>the</strong> senior markers, chief markers, internalmoderators and <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants.While m<strong>on</strong>itoring <strong>on</strong> 12 December 2012, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> m<strong>on</strong>itor, was surprisedto find that some chief markers and internal moderators were called backto re-check marked scripts in order to “quality assure” borderline scripts andlevel-1 marks.All <strong>of</strong>ficials worked toge<strong>the</strong>r to ensure quality.A final check was d<strong>on</strong>e by <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants to ensure that alltotals were correct and had been transferred, and that all questi<strong>on</strong>s hadbeen marked.One method <strong>of</strong> quality assurance c<strong>on</strong>sisted <strong>of</strong> multiple layers <strong>of</strong>moderati<strong>on</strong>.Each script was double-checked for completeness <strong>of</strong> marking and correcttotalling before being forwarded to <strong>the</strong> IT secti<strong>on</strong> for capturing.5.2.12 ReportsProvinceEastern CapeFree StateGautengKwaZulu-NatalFindingsAt <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking sessi<strong>on</strong>, qualitative <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were completedjointly by chief markers and internal moderators. Markers also made writteninputs.Qualitative <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were completed jointly by chief markers and internalmoderators. Markers also made an input into <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s.A template was used for compiling <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s to ensure that <strong>the</strong>y met <strong>the</strong>minimum requirements.The <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were used to help schools in <strong>the</strong> teaching <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subjects. Theywere also used during standardisati<strong>on</strong>.There was evidence <strong>of</strong> m<strong>on</strong>itoring visits at Kro<strong>on</strong>stad, Eunice, OranjeMeisies, Unitas, Parys, Moroka, Unicom and Paul Erasmus. There was noevidence from <strong>the</strong> remaining six centres.The chief marker and <strong>the</strong> internal moderator made absolutely sure that<strong>the</strong>se <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s and <strong>the</strong> informati<strong>on</strong> ga<strong>the</strong>red met <strong>the</strong> minimum standards.The GDE sent copies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s to <strong>the</strong> DBE and to <strong>Umalusi</strong> <strong>of</strong>fices.Some copies were sent to regi<strong>on</strong>s, district <strong>of</strong>fices and schools.The aim <strong>of</strong> sending <strong>the</strong>se copies to <strong>the</strong> places menti<strong>on</strong>ed above was todraw <strong>the</strong> attenti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> all educators to strengths and weaknesses in <strong>the</strong>handling <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> curriculum.Road shows are embarked <strong>on</strong> annually during February in order to informteachers and to equip <strong>the</strong>m for <strong>the</strong> task ahead <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m for <strong>the</strong> new year.Reports from <strong>the</strong> marking centre were sent to <strong>the</strong> province <strong>on</strong> a daily basis.Final qualitative <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were also sent by <strong>the</strong> chief markers and <strong>the</strong> internalmoderators for each paper.One <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> went to <strong>the</strong> province and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r to DBE. The managersresp<strong>on</strong>sible c<strong>on</strong>trolled <strong>the</strong> receipt <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s.The c<strong>on</strong>tent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s was specific, following a template, and <strong>the</strong>377
ProvinceLimpopoMpumalangaNor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeNorth WestWestern CapeFindingsmanager resp<strong>on</strong>sible checked <strong>the</strong> quality.The provincial <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> was used for guidance and feedback to educators,subject advisors and examiners <strong>on</strong> problem areas in <strong>the</strong> subjects.The <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> that went to DBE was used for standardisati<strong>on</strong> purposes.Markers did not write <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s. The senior markers, deputy chief markers andchief markers collaborated with <strong>the</strong> internal moderator to prepare a <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>for <strong>the</strong> assessment body.A <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> format was supplied by <strong>the</strong> assessment body in order to cover all<strong>the</strong> aspects required to be <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed <strong>on</strong>.Qualitative <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were written by <strong>the</strong> chief markers and internalmoderators suing written inputs from <strong>the</strong> markers.These were handed in at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking sessi<strong>on</strong>.At <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> chief markers and internalmoderators submitted qualitative <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s that included written inputs frommarkers and senior markers.The <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were used at <strong>the</strong> standardisati<strong>on</strong> meetings and made availableto schools.Both <strong>the</strong> internal moderators and chief markers submitted qualitative<str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sessi<strong>on</strong>.Analytical moderators also c<strong>on</strong>tributed <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s.Notes were kept every day, but <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were <strong>on</strong>ly submitted in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong>an irregularity.At <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marking process both <strong>the</strong> internal moderators and <strong>the</strong>chief markers had to submit qualitative <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> sessi<strong>on</strong>.Reports were used as a basis for improving practice in future sessi<strong>on</strong>s.5.2.13 Electr<strong>on</strong>ic capturing <strong>of</strong> marksProvinceEastern CapeFree StateGautengFindingsMarks were entered according to a dual system; <strong>on</strong>e for entering and <strong>the</strong>o<strong>the</strong>r for verifying.The leader <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> capturing team did spot checks for verificati<strong>on</strong> purposes.Mark sheets were collected periodically from <strong>the</strong> marking centres.Scripts were transported by escorted truck to <strong>the</strong> place <strong>of</strong> data capturing,while mark sheets were transported by departmental <strong>of</strong>ficials.One pers<strong>on</strong> captured <strong>the</strong> marks and ano<strong>the</strong>r verified <strong>the</strong> capturing.Capturing was d<strong>on</strong>e under very strict supervisi<strong>on</strong>.Mark sheets were collected for submissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> a daily basis.All scripts and mark sheets were transported by unmarked trucks andbakkies which were well secured and serviced. They were enclosed andcould be locked securely.The double capturing method was used for data capturing at <strong>the</strong> GDEhead <strong>of</strong>fice. Proper guidelines from <strong>the</strong> DBE were followed when <strong>the</strong>yexecuted <strong>the</strong> above-menti<strong>on</strong>ed duties. The GDE submitted its mark sheets378
ProvinceFindingsdaily to <strong>the</strong> assessment unit secti<strong>on</strong> when <strong>the</strong> work was completed.KwaZulu-NatalLimpopoMpumalangaNor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeNorth WestWestern CapeOriginal mark sheets were transported by a provincial <strong>of</strong>ficial to <strong>the</strong>provincial data-capturing centre as mark sheets became available, while<strong>the</strong> copies were kept at <strong>the</strong> marking centre. Mark sheets were alsoscanned into <strong>the</strong> system at <strong>the</strong> marking centres.Final checks by examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants ensured that marks were capturedcorrectly. Checks comparing batch totals to <strong>the</strong> totals obtained during <strong>the</strong>capturing <strong>of</strong> marks.The system also flagged instances where marks were left out or whenabsent candidates were not indicated as such.Capturing <strong>of</strong> marks was d<strong>on</strong>e at <strong>the</strong> head <strong>of</strong>fice <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> LimpopoDepartment <strong>of</strong> Educati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> secti<strong>on</strong>.Mark sheets were collected from centres by <strong>of</strong>ficials from head <strong>of</strong>fice everytwo days.The marks were captured per circuit/district and <strong>the</strong>n counter-checked <strong>on</strong><strong>the</strong> system.The examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants assisted in checking for marks captured and forgaps in <strong>the</strong> mark sheets.The mark sheets were signed <strong>of</strong>f and collected regularly for data capturing.The c<strong>on</strong>trol <strong>of</strong>ficer ensured that <strong>the</strong> work was correctly d<strong>on</strong>e.Capturing <strong>of</strong> marks was d<strong>on</strong>e by a data-capturing team at <strong>the</strong> provincial<strong>of</strong>fices.Marks were captured at Mahikeng.The mark sheets were used as source documents for capturing marks.The utmost care was exercised by <strong>of</strong>ficials (runners) when transporting <strong>the</strong>mark sheets to <strong>the</strong> capturing centre.Data was captured at <strong>the</strong> marking centre in <strong>the</strong> university’s computerlaboratory.Marks were captured directly from <strong>the</strong> scripts, which eliminated <strong>on</strong>e stepwhere errors could occur – transfer <strong>of</strong> marks to <strong>the</strong> mark sheets.A hash total served as a c<strong>on</strong>trol measure – if it did not agree <strong>the</strong> batch hadto be entered again.379
5.2.14 Packing and transmissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> documentati<strong>on</strong>ProvinceEastern CapeFree StateGautengKwaZulu-NatalLimpopoMpumalangaFindingMarked answer scripts were placed in clearly marked bins after beingchecked and counted.The bins were sealed and eventually collected from <strong>the</strong> centres by <strong>the</strong> PDEfor storage.Marked answer scripts were counted and recorded by chief markers andexaminati<strong>on</strong> assistants.The mark sheets and <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were collected by departmental <strong>of</strong>ficials, anda dispatch register was completed.All marked answer scripts were counted and recorded by chiefmarkers/examiners and <strong>the</strong>ir teams.On completi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> this process <strong>the</strong> scripts were scanned in <strong>on</strong>e by <strong>on</strong>e.Assessment body <strong>of</strong>ficials kept a record <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> bags <strong>of</strong> scripts and <strong>the</strong> marksheets that had been scanned.When <strong>the</strong> process had been completed assessment body <strong>of</strong>ficialsdispatched <strong>the</strong> mark sheets and <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s to <strong>the</strong> relevant higher <strong>of</strong>fices.All mark sheet copies were kept at <strong>the</strong> assessment body’s head <strong>of</strong>fice.The marked answer scripts were counted and recorded before beingtransported back to <strong>the</strong> districts.The examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants, script c<strong>on</strong>trollers and admin managers bundled<strong>the</strong> scripts toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> copy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mark sheet.Records were kept <strong>of</strong> all dispatched material, including <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s. Reportswere sent by email or faxed. Mark sheets were transported by vehicle.Copies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mark sheets were kept at <strong>the</strong> marking centre.The scripts were counted and collected by <strong>the</strong> examinati<strong>on</strong> assistants in<strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> security guards and recorded by <strong>the</strong> str<strong>on</strong>g roomc<strong>on</strong>trol manager.Scripts were dispatched from <strong>the</strong> marking centres and, <strong>on</strong> arrival at <strong>the</strong>warehouse, <strong>the</strong>y were checked and signed for by <strong>the</strong> provincial educati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong>ficials and subsequently stored.A register was kept to record <strong>the</strong> dispatch <strong>of</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s and mark sheets from<strong>the</strong> centre to head <strong>of</strong>fice. Copies <strong>of</strong> mark sheets were kept at <strong>the</strong> markingcentre.Tracking documents were completed to keep track <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> scripts.Nor<strong>the</strong>rn CapeNorth WestWestern CapeScripts were checked and packaged in clearly marked boxes for collecti<strong>on</strong>by <strong>the</strong> PDE.Mark sheets were collected for recording by PDE <strong>of</strong>ficials.The scripts were carefully counted and recorded before being dispatchedto <strong>the</strong> PDE.Proper c<strong>on</strong>trols were in place for <strong>the</strong> collecti<strong>on</strong> and transport <strong>of</strong> scripts to<strong>the</strong> WCED.Chief markers were not allowed to leave before all scripts submitted hadbeen signed <strong>of</strong>f.380
AcknowledgementsA special word <strong>of</strong> thank you goes to <strong>the</strong> following individuals and groups for <strong>the</strong>irc<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> in putting this <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> toge<strong>the</strong>r:Dr Laraine O’C<strong>on</strong>ell who c<strong>on</strong>solidated <strong>the</strong> individual <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s from <strong>the</strong> external moderatorsand m<strong>on</strong>itors into <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>.Staff <strong>of</strong> <strong>Umalusi</strong> <strong>Quality</strong> <strong>Assurance</strong> <strong>of</strong> Assessment (QAA) unit for evaluating, syn<strong>the</strong>sisingand c<strong>on</strong>solidating <strong>the</strong> individual chapters and <strong>the</strong> final <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>:Mr Vijayen NaidooMs C<strong>on</strong>fidence DikgoleMr Andy ThuloMr Siphmandla NxumaloThe editor Ms Alexa Barnby for editing <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g> under tight time c<strong>on</strong>straints.Ms Annelize Jansen van Rensburg for <strong>the</strong> layout <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>.The <strong>Umalusi</strong> team <strong>of</strong> external moderators for <strong>the</strong>ir tireless dedicati<strong>on</strong> to <strong>the</strong> moderati<strong>on</strong>work, as well as developing <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s presented in this <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>:Ms Diane S Woodr<strong>of</strong>feMr Jacob MamaileMrs Charmaine S BritsPr<strong>of</strong>. A CoetzerMrs M VenterMr Thebeyamotse A TshabangDr Fourten KhumaloMr Stanley GcwensaMr S NaickerMr Daniel MacPhers<strong>on</strong>Dr Christian F van AsMr Trevor D HaasMrs Wilma UysMr M J ChilesMs Diana J BrownMs CM Magdalena van PletzenMs S BothaMrs G CowanDr Lorraine P SinghMr Mohamed F Hoosain381
Mr EJ PretoriusMr Sathiselan P<strong>on</strong>enMr Irwin E HearneMr Dirk HanekomMr Achmat BagusMr Merven P MoodleyMrs Fathima SulimanDr Visvaganthie MoodleyMs MP BembeMs Elaine M PowellMs Zama ShabalalaMr Quintin T KoetaanMr Eddie SmutsDr Surenda S SeetalMs Sharifa IsmailMs Cornelia E KoekemoerMr Piet Jan MasilelaMr S MatsoloMs Nombulelo B NgomelaMs Nosisa WS BeyileMs Phumla P CutaleleDr Isaac K MndaweMs Cynthia N MaphumuloMs Thembelihle NgobeseMs Fikile Khub<strong>on</strong>iMs Martha J Bernard-PheraMr TP MerementsiMs Farrah HendricksMr P. PreethlallDr T. IsaacMrs Anna CroweMs PB MajoziMr Mogamat A HendricksMr Rakesh SinghPr<strong>of</strong>. Poobhalan PillayPr<strong>of</strong>. NJH HeidemanDr C G KriekMr Rajen GovenderMr Pragasen NaidooMr Franklin A LewisMs Zoradah TemminghMr D<strong>on</strong> FrancisMr Piet StruwegDr Willy L WillemseMs Deborah M MampuruPr<strong>of</strong> Mawatle J MojalefaDr Ntepele I Magapa382
Ms P MohapiDr Matilda DubeMr Molapo P ThitoDr P LubisiPr<strong>of</strong>. Phaladi M. SebateMr G MolaotseMs Seanokeng FC Sehume-HlakoaneDr M LeseteMr Ludwig PuntMr Rodney Johns<strong>on</strong>Ms Julia NedzharataPr<strong>of</strong>. Karin M SkawranMs Louisa NdobelaThe <strong>Umalusi</strong> team <strong>of</strong> m<strong>on</strong>itors for <strong>the</strong> hard work put into <strong>the</strong> m<strong>on</strong>itoring <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> NSCexaminati<strong>on</strong>, as well as providing <strong>Umalusi</strong> with <strong>the</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>s presented in this <str<strong>on</strong>g>report</str<strong>on</strong>g>:MS SS N<strong>on</strong>gogoMr H E FranzsenPr<strong>of</strong> C Z GebedaMr A MoloabiMr L J MoloiMs EC RadiseMr MM SeitshiroMr MJ M<strong>of</strong>okengMr J J MabotjaMr A SeckleMs JN MophiringMr S PillayMr MK KgoleMr BO NzimandeMr LW GwalaMrs N G JaftaMr SM ZumaMr C MaakalMr MamaboloDr MN RathandoMr S M MaforaMr M T MagadzeMr MW MokoenaMr SJ HlatswayoMrs M van VenrooyMr SM DlakudeMrs M C MotlhabaneMr M.R.C SetshogoeMr JKO Sebitloane383
Mrs M A VenterMr K P SpiesDr GJ KotzeMr D R SheperdMr M S NdunaMrs T YawaMrs V Hector384
37 General Van Ryneveld Street, Persequor Technopark, PretoriaTeleph<strong>on</strong>e: +27 12 349 1510 • Fax: +27 12 349 1511E-mail: Info@umalusi.org.za • Web: www.umalusi.org.za
Change language