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 education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

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

    Dismiss Notice

WJEC A Level Results

Discussion in 'Computing and ICT' started by johnbrown, Aug 19, 2010.

  1. Couldn't agree more.
    I see weaker students each year doing the course. Usually because they can't get accepted on other subjects. Often the students who can't be bothered to get a job and can't be bothered to actually turn up to lessons and God forbid do any work. But, even so, they get a couple of grades higher in other subjects. Generally, our school's AS results this year were well down on last year. A pretty poor cohort I am afraid to say. Many of the good ones left after GCSE to go to other schools. 5 years ago we set the entry level as a GCSE B or higher for ICT. Now we accept D's or even no CGSE in ICT at all.
    GCE ICT IS a dead subject, but nobody has checked the body to see that it has no pulse. GCSE is similarly declining.
  2. compoit

    compoit New commenter

    I have read with interest the comments on this thread and I feel for you. We moved away from WJEC a couple of years ago and have never looked back, I could see the writing on the wall, the more pouplar they became the more examiners they need and the more they would be inclined to accept any rubbish.
    I have noticed the word 'waffle' mentioned in a number of responses, I'm afraid a lot of that is to do with the Chief Examiner/exam paper writer - Mr Rudge. We once attended an inset day and never thought the chap was going to end - therefore it stands to reason you will have 'waffle' in the syllabus and 'waffle' in the exam. If you are going to stand a chance with WJEC ICT then you need a new CE who writes papers logically. Kids of 16/17 (in particular ICT kids)cannot be expected to write reams of <strike>waffle</strike> prose.
    God help you all.

  3. shenn

    shenn New commenter

    Waffle is bad enough but the biggest issue is the answers they expect and those valida answers they do not accept.

    An example from June IT3:

    <font size="3" face="Times-Bold">
    <font size="3" face="Times-Italic">(a) </font><font size="3" face="Times-Roman">Discuss in detail the potential threats to data and the possible consequences of accidental or deliberate destruction of data. Illustrate your answer with distinctly different examples in </font><font size="3" face="Times-Bold">each </font><font size="3" face="Times-Roman">case. [9]</font><font size="3" face="Times-Roman">
    Answer taken from mark scheme:
    <font size="2" face="Arial">9. (a)
    </font><font size="2" face="Arial">One mark explanation per relevant point, up to nine:
    Answers must be sentences and not a list.
    Consequences must match threats.
    List of threats 1 mark. List of consequences 1 mark.
    <font size="2" face="Arial">&bull; Terrorism
    &bull; Natural disasters
    &bull; Sabotage
    &bull; Fire
    &bull; Theft
    &bull; Poor training (condone)
    </font><font size="2" face="Arial">Note: </font><font size="2" face="Arial">Hacking and viruses are not a threat in themselves. Insert a virus to deliberately destroy data is sabotage. Hacking to take data is theft.</font></font><font size="2" face="Arial">
    So hacking and viruses which are specific to ICT are not allowed whereas sabotage and theft which are very generic are allowed. What kind of idiot could argue this is correct, I cannot wait for the Llandudno CPD where I can ask Dai to justify this.
    I do not think God can help us
  4. Jesus. This kind of question does not have black and white answers. What about accidental deletion of data, fIlure of equipment, failure to stress test backup procedures, sacked emoloees deleting data on the way out, and yes, hacking and malware are serios threats, too. This is what we mean when calls are made to divorce ict and computing from exam boards. They are utterly incompetent.
  5. Just reading the Examiner's Report from January 2010 (below) is it any wonder we can't get decent grades, surely when he was writing it he must have realised there is a problem somewhere as the kids were 'confused' about this, 'confused' about that - then stop bloody confusing them -ask questions that are not open to misinterpretation.


  6. It's easy to take issue with any exam boards qns and answers and it always will be.
    There is no such thing as the perfect exam board and their never will be.
    Many centres have kids who are getting excellent marks for these exams; complaints from failing centres that the marking is poor have absolutely no weight at all.
    If you don't agree with some of the silly ideas that are present in exam papers from WJEC and all boards that's tough; your job is to teach the kids the 'right' answers and help them to do as well as they can.
    Inconsistency in answers - now that's something to get upset about; WJEC is certainly guilty of that and it really does get in the way of 'achievement'.
  7. IT1 JUNE 2010
    A Boundary = 56
    E Boundary = 32
    A% = 5.8%
    E% = 58.2% (Cumulative)

  8. Has anyone got a breakdown of results from WJEC about A2 and AS scores, or grade boundaries? I'm sure you get a print out of students individual unit raw and ums marks from other exam boards.
  9. Those were national figures BTW.
  10. naturalcynic,
    Your exams officer can register you for access to the WJEC secure site where you will find all the stats you need.
  11. Those statisitcs are pretty awful (I double checked). They cannot possibly justify those marks, obviously somebody has to ask questions about the quality of the paper or the examiners marking them.
    If that is this year's results then next year's results aren't going to be much better - I would switch boards now!!
    Have a look at the CCEA (Northern Irish) board - their specification has just been approved with 50% coursework (how did they get away with that??)
    Anyway, good luck all of you!

  12. I am not trying to show off - I did a **** job of preparing my kids for the exam and they could have done a lot better even though they're ALL eal and we also have the problem of having our course packed with idjits.
    But I think our A-E for Unit 1 is approx 67%. Grades were ****- highest a 'B'.
    But overall, with the 'get-out-of-jail-free' coursework, the pass rate for the complete award was approx 80%
    I really don't want to be provocative but I think maybe centres with a lower rate than that maybe ought to calm down a bit and resist the temptation to hate, and blame, the board.
    Our rates aren't great (good enough for us considering who and what we are) but I just know I wouldn't get near that with AQA.
    I think some of you may be new to the board and this may be skewing overall statistics and yours, as well.
    Give yourselves a chance - our results have improved a lot this year - well, I think last year, we were around a 30% Unit 1 pass rate and 40% overall - so they have doubled.
    Maybe it'll be ok, if you're just patient?
  13. Yeah, well we are smack on the average but we usually do a lot better overall. Usually ALPS 2 - our cohort is generally D/E heavy.
    Our good kids have got the grades they should but the bottom end have dropped out (so to speak) in a way that hasn't happened before. Those raw scores are really tight on the boundary - it looks like IT1 exam didnt differentiate very well.... it worries me that the big mark question can be on anything, and could make a difference of many grades.

  14. kathley

    kathley New commenter

    If we're talking statistics, then take a look at the following which are available via the WJEC secure site - all centres showing average mark for each question:
    IT1 - AS
    Q1 = 25%
    Q2 = 37.5%
    Q3 = 45%
    Q4 = 35.7%
    Q5 = 58.3%
    Q6 = 36.6%
    Q7 = 62%
    Q8 = 47.8%
    Q9 = 30%
    Q10 = 50.6% (Spreadsheet)
    The overall average mark was about 33 out of 80 = 42%.
    Can't wait for the Course day in October to speak Mr Rudge about this!!
  15. compoit

    compoit New commenter

    You spotted it - also there are 5 very interesting current theory topics to learn instead of WJEC's 15 - now how did they do that then?
    Seems to me WJEC have over interpreted the requirements in both AS & A2.

  16. Perhaps we should just all be geatful we don't teach gary lineker's thick son - they seem to think 25k a year at a school buys you the right to be lazy before the exams then slag off publically the school after they don't get the result they need. Oh well, he can always get a job in macdonalds, or live off daddy' s money.
  17. Really?
    I'm sure that those topics could easily be subdivided into 15 topics and that the WJEC units could easily be agglomerated into 5 topics.
    So what?
    'interesting' - very much a matter of opinion.
  18. Whilst we don't teach this qualification I can only say I agree, this question and the suggested answers pose real issues. For example, I'm no lawyer but in the UK theft may be defined as.
    "A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates
    property belonging to another with the intention of permanently
    depriving the other of it."
    In intellectual property infringments such as access to copyrighted or otherwise protected data you may well not deprive the owner of the data/property. In the case (for example) of copyright infringement enabled by computer misuse it is simply not theft! This is not to say that computer misuse could not facilitate theft. Personally I prefer the term "computer misue" to hacking.
    My understanding of sabotage implies directed human intent to do harm/prevent functioning of usually an organisation. The vast majority of software commonly dubbed viruses (that I've been aware of) are not designed to cause directed sabotage, many viruses will replicate to any and all systems available and many early cases caused no real damage/loss of productivity to the infected systems, whilst modern viruses are commonly malicious I would have thought the majority are not descriminatory or directed.
    Whilst the virus/sabotage terms may well be debatable I honestly can't see how hacking/computer misuse as outlined in the UK in the computer misuse act 1990 can simply equate to theft!
    Perhaps a general term of espionage would work better in the list of threats?
    P.S. Fire can be a natural disaster also, such a list is not a simpe checkbox exercise!
  19. ***?
    What language is this?
  20. "A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates
    property belonging to another with the intention of permanently
    depriving the other of it."
    Is simply a quote of the definition of theft from the theft act 1968, as outlined on wikipedia.
    Sorry if the langauge seems odd, the simple point I'm making is that threats from hacking and viruses (which many people would think are viable threats, ruled out bythe exam board) do no directly/exclusively equate to theft or sabotage!
    John having read your posts on this thread so far, if you can't see that hacking or computer misuse do not equate to theft, it's my opinion that it's not a language issue you are suffering from.
    P.S. Your phrasing and question (***/what langage is this) is un helpful. Do you work or mark for the board?

Share This Page