CCEA GCE Physics Support Events 2017 Stormont Pavilion

CCEA GCE Physics Support Events 2017 Stormont Pavilion 7 th Dec Glenavon Hotel 5 th Dec

Agenda 9. 30 -10. 00 Arrivals 10. 00 -10. 05 The GCE Physics Team 10. 05 -10. 20 Introductions/ Awarding GG 10. 20 -10. 40 Break 10. 40 - 11. 00 Journey of the Question Paper FC 11. 00 -11. 40 Chief Examiners report on 1 st Award of New Specification AK 11. 40 -12. 30 Question and Answer Session

Other Physics Support Institute of Physics • http: //www. iop. org/education/teacher/support/network/in-yourarea/ireland/index. html? _ga=2. 141671537. 211571545. 1512053387 -1623232105. 1512053387 • Teachers networks • Studying Physics In Ireland- Publication • Science Festival ASE • ASE Conferences / Teachmeets

Changes which have occurred • Regulatory environment has become more severe • Ofqual introduced principle of “comparable outcomes” at qualification level upheld by NI Regulator • This means “on average, a student who got a particular grade last year would get the same grade again this year for the same qualification” [Ofqual website 2014] OR • If the ability of the candidature this year is the same as last year then the outcomes at qualification level should be similar (GCSE mean score data) • Inter-awarding body comparability and maintenance of standards

Statistical Predictions To assist us in achieving comparable outcomes Regulation gives us statistical predictions against which we must report

Social Media http: //www. jcq. org. uk/examsoffice/malpractice Issues Consequences

A question paper ‘the journey’

The team • • Subject officer Chair Chief 2 Revisers 5 Principal Examiners* Scrutineer QPP ( Question paper production unit)

Process • Examiner receives a question paper outline • First draft produced • First draft sent out for revision: – Paper rejected – Questions revised: content, language, order, etc • Returned to CX / PX • PX submits a final draft for typesetting • First proof sent out to QPEC

• • QPEC meeting First revised proof typeset Second QPEC if required CX and Co. E revise proof until ‘clean’ Scrutiny of question paper and mark scheme CX and Co. E view scrutiny report Paper for press

• • Modified papers: lay out and language Irish Medium Editorial Checks First formal check Last pull Second formal check Setting process complete

Confidentiality Throughout the stages confidentiality is critical.

Practical papers Before the process outlined the proposed experiments are tested in a school laboratory to ensure they are manageable and that equipment and materials necessary are either present or easily obtainable by a school.

On line papers • • • Space for answering Additional objects and zoning Indentation Question style Tighter mark schemes

New Specification • • • Getting familiar with new paper requirements Increased time Increased mark allocation Practical paper split Assessment objective % allocation

Marking the exam paper • Continuous revision of the mark scheme • Pre standardising: refinement of mark scheme • Standardising meeting - agreed marking scheme and strategy - extensive e. c. f. • Supervision of markers throughout the process • Awarding days

Chief Examiner’s Report • Considerations: – Feedback from centres – Opinions from markers in their report to the principal examiner within a few days of finishing marking – Report on each unit written by principal examiners and submitted to chief examiner – The chief examiner’s own experience from marking all units

Chief Examiner’s Report General points • Not answering what was specifically asked – Learning answers from a mark scheme – Missing subtleties in questions

General Points • Presentation of candidates work for online marking – Difficult to read handwriting on many occasions – Overwritten numbers cannot be deciphered – Points plotted on grids need to be clear – Answers should appear on answer line – Stick to space provided where possible

• Error Carried Forward – Markers do their best to award candidates for any correct physics shown within an unstructured calculation – To award ecf within a part candidates working must be laid out clearly

• Significant Figures – Answers to calculations should be to appropriate significant figures – Won’t be penalised on every occasion throughout the non practical papers but will be where it is felt to be most appropriate. – Penalised on every occasion where relevant in practical papers

• Candidates Practical Experiences – General feeling that some candidates have more hands on experience of practical work than others – Seen in description of the finer details in experiments – Where possible we would encourage centres to give candidates the experience of completing experiments rather than watching videos or similar.

AS 1 • Length was a slight issue - addressed for 2018 papers • The vast majority of candidates managed to complete but some didn’t have much time to check or revisit work • A number of challenging unstructured calculations – tested candidates but all made some headway and gained part marks. • Difficulty reflected in raw mark grade boundary

AS 2 • Well received by candidates • New concepts in unit has resulted in more mathematical content than previous spec • Straightforward well rehearsed calculations • Reflected in higher raw mark grade boundaries

AS 3 A • Timing to be adjusted – 4 minute write up time at the end • Clearer instruction when repeats are not expected so that candidates do not waste time • Where possible centres should set up as instructed in the notes for guidance so candidates answers will fall within accepted values when quality is examined

AS 3 B • Graph drawing and data analysis is well done by candidates • Many struggled with the detail of improvement in experimental technique of a prescribed experiment on the specification. • Concerns raised that some candidates do not have access to adequate practical opportunities.

Questions

Thank you for your attendance