1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

GCSE English (January) re-mark!!!!

Discussion in 'English' started by Umfundisi, Apr 19, 2012.

  1. Hi,

    My HOD returned copies of GCSE English papers that had been submitted (to edexcel) for a re-mark today.

    Having reviewed a few of these papers, the only 'evidence' of assessment that I can see to inform my teaching in the lead up to the re-sit in a few weeks' time is a a few numbers in boxes.

    The only 'evidence' of re-marking I can see is the same number repeated in adjacent boxes with a most helpful green tick appended.

    Am I right in being very surprised (that's the polite term) to see only this level of annotation?

    Is this common across other examination boards with the move towards marking online?

    Any comments would be appreciated as my students will want to know the outcome of their re-mark next week. They are a talented and ambitious bunch so are likely to ask me to explain and justify the grade they were awarded.

    Thank you,

    umfundisi
     
  2. Hi,

    My HOD returned copies of GCSE English papers that had been submitted (to edexcel) for a re-mark today.

    Having reviewed a few of these papers, the only 'evidence' of assessment that I can see to inform my teaching in the lead up to the re-sit in a few weeks' time is a a few numbers in boxes.

    The only 'evidence' of re-marking I can see is the same number repeated in adjacent boxes with a most helpful green tick appended.

    Am I right in being very surprised (that's the polite term) to see only this level of annotation?

    Is this common across other examination boards with the move towards marking online?

    Any comments would be appreciated as my students will want to know the outcome of their re-mark next week. They are a talented and ambitious bunch so are likely to ask me to explain and justify the grade they were awarded.

    Thank you,

    umfundisi
     
  3. sleepyhead

    sleepyhead New commenter

    I mark online for another exam board, and I am required to "annotate" as a summative comment using the annotations supplied + any I wish to add, in relation to the mark scheme. I tend also to annotate in the body as I would in the world of paper marking.
     
  4. recliningbuddah

    recliningbuddah New commenter

    Hi we've got some of our remarks back from the WJEC and they've been annotated by the original marker and the secondary marker. Although some of the annotations have left us blazing! We have always been told that pupils should make up facts and stats etc. - some of the comments about the kids' made up stats are sarcastic and rude! In fact we had one pupil who hade made a (shock - horror!) maths calculation error (when she was attempting to back her argument up with stats!) and this was commented on twice! Didn't know it was a maths exam and you lost marks for for multiplication! Grrrrrrrrr!!!
     
  5. Thank you for these helpful comments. The scripts that I have looked at are SO different to my previous experience of teaching (and marking as an assistant examiner for almost ten years) the old AQA spec. Even a day later I am still in a state of surprise (to again use a mild term for my present feelings about this.)
     
  6. markuss

    markuss Occasional commenter

    I handle some results enquiries for another body. We don't do any special annotation on enquiry scripts. We might put something from a band descriptor on a script if we have to disagree with the banding of the original examiner but we don't have to. If we do have to change the final total of a script, then we have to explain why on a "Justification Report" - but not on the script itself.
     
  7. markuss

    markuss Occasional commenter

    Re the use of fictional statistics and made up surveys and interviews etc, when you come across a Centre where you're getting this same formula over and over and over again, it does get irritating but you just have to grit your teeth and be as fair to the last script written to order as it were as you were to the first one - and apply the mark scheme rigorously.
    It's certainly totally forbidden to make any comment on a script that isn't in the mark scheme. Any examiner doing that could be accused of making up their own mark scheme. (Needless to say, I'd have thought, comments showing personal reaction such as "Lovely" or "What???!!!" are rightly seen as unprofessional.)
     
  8. markuss

    markuss Occasional commenter

    Annotation will be different with on line work. I believe that with the Edexcel software, there isn't any at all (but that's hearsay).
    What made a huge difference in the attitude and strictness of awarding bodies was the decision to make it much more commonplace for scripts to go back to Centres. I'd say, though that personal comments by examiners were never supposed to be there, anyway.
    (You know, I guess, that it's because they've always all gone back to schools that NCT scripts have never had any annotation on them at all.)
     
  9. markuss

    markuss Occasional commenter

    Just one other thing. Umfundisi, you're saying "re-mark". Did the Edexcel body promise exactly that for the money your Centre paid?
    You see, in my job, I do sometimes literally re-mark the work of other examiners.
    However, when Centres have requested a review of the marking of certain scripts, that's what they get and that's what I do. When I'm reviewing in the Results Enquiries process, I am not being paid to re-mark; I'm being paid to "review" - different assessment process. That's why I don't have to supply my own annotation.
     
  10. Markuss, thank you for this detailed clarification. I understood- perhaps erroneously- that a "re-mark" had been requested but in the light of your comments perhaps this was indeed a "review". That would explain why a tick would suffice. I will query this point you have raised next week.

    As there is no initial annotation, however, I still find it difficult to perceive where and how a mark has been awarded.

    In fairness, I should note that it is quite impressive to have a scanned copy of the script to see how the candidate fared on the paper, but this alone (i.e. without some level of annotation) does not make it very clear to me as a subject teacher how I should help a student prepare for this important GCSE qualification.
     
  11. markuss

    markuss Occasional commenter

    Appreciate your difficulty. It does help enormously if you can ask an examiner who has worked on the Paper to look at your scripts and explain how the mark scheme has been applied.
    Examiners are usually instructed that they need not write any comment if they feel that an answer clearly deserves a mark within the Band that they are awarding.
    If they do give a comment, it'll usually be the bit of the band descriptor that has most influenced their final judgement.
     
  12. CandysDog

    CandysDog Occasional commenter

    WJEC require annotations and summative comments on writing and essay answers, but not (as far as I know) short reading answers. The comments do not ALL have to be directly from the mark scheme, but should be show how the examiner arrived at that mark and should be suitable for public consumption. Certainly, the comments referred to by recliningbuddah seem to be completely inappropriate.



    WJEC do offer the examiner commentary that markuss alludes to. It's not one of the formal post-results services, so you just have to get in touch with the board and ask for it.
     
  13. recliningbuddah

    recliningbuddah New commenter

    Our scripts are littered with comments like 'really!', ' a bold assumption' and 'wow' (in a sarcastic sense!) and, as previously mentioned, 'maths calculation is wrong'. When you say it is 'forbidden' is there anything we can do? As it seems to me that the secondary marker has also added similar comments in an attempt to justify a low mark.
     
  14. markuss

    markuss Occasional commenter


    Such comments would not be tolerated on scripts with the bodies I work for and I'm surprised that they seem to be condoned elsewhere.
    I'd have thought it was worth raising with someone. In the first place, I'd suggest asking the "Subject Officer" (if that's the right name) for the specification concerned if this is normal annotation policy with the body.
    I'd think seriously about referring it to Ofqual too.
     
  15. markuss

    markuss Occasional commenter

    wazo, that's interesting. Clearly, then, the Edexcel software supports annotation including comments. The examiner who told me he's able to mark at the speed of light because annotation is not required is in a different system from you - he does the International side ("O" Level).
    When I do online work, I find the annotation a real obstacle (compared to doing everything with one pen). Pick up a tick; put it down on the script; put it back and pick up a wavy underline; drag it under the offending words; put it back; pick up a "P" or an "Sp" to stick in the margin and so on and so on. When they tell you all the advantages of online marking (and I agree that there are some) they tend not to mention annotation!
     
  16. I agree, it's clunky on the Edexcel system too. It remembers the last thing you did, so I find that it's easier just to annotate using comments rather than bother with switching to a tick or a cross! As a result the scripts I mark tend to have more comments than anything else.

    The first year we switched to online marking there was no real pressure to comment on every script (although I still think the majority of us did), but it was certainly recommended last year.
     

Share This Page