PLEASE NOTE THIS REPORT SENT BY CXC CONCERNING THE ENGLISH SBA.

Paper 031 – School-Based Assessment (SBA)

This was the first time the School-Based Assessment was used as a part of student assessment
for English. Students were required to work individually as well as in groups (of 4 or 5) to
complete and submit a project consisting of six sections. All sections were marked by the
teacher and three of those (the Plan, Reflection and Written Report) were moderated. Although
there were many students whose projects met the required standard, there were others who did
not follow the requirements or suggestions set out in the syllabus.

Most students did the Plan of Investigation well. The main area to be improved is in how the
language skills would be used in the SBA. Language skills cover a wide range of speaking,
writing, reading and listening. Expected responses included developing and using skills in
writing genres such as report writing to provide information about the chosen topic, or
narrative/descriptive/creative writing to craft a personal response to the theme.

The students’ attempts for Reflection 1, that is how each piece of material helped to shape his or
her thinking about the issue/topic/theme/event were done well and so too was the discussion of
artefacts in the written report. However, there were some issues noted.

In writing Reflection 2 which required students to discuss the use of language in the material
selected, many students failed to identify and discuss a suitable language technique.
Students needed guidance in choosing suitable artefacts, especially visual artefacts. Students
must be able to discuss the use of language in each artefact. Some students’ written expression,
especially in the reflections, was very unclear.

Plan of Investigation

Students were to give a title/topic, a reason for selecting such, the perceived benefits to
themselves as students of English, and the proposal for the collection and use of the material
(three pieces as specified by the syllabus). The suggested length was 100 words and should
have been in continuous prose. However, many plans were over 300 words. There were several
unnecessary ‘Introductions’ to the plan as well as bulleted lists of several ‘problems’ the
students expected to occur. Students also wrote the ‘requirements’ of the whole project as part
of the plan. For example, a student writing “I am expected to find three pieces of data and I will
write a poem or a story which will be followed by an oral presentation. After this, I plan to
write three …” would not have scored any marks for Section (C).

However, it was obvious that many students gave much thought to the selection of their topics
and the reasons for such, but selecting a topic “because the information is easy to find” and
stating “to get a Grade I in English” as the benefits to an English student, would not have been
awarded any marks in Section B.

Several students were able to state the type of materials to be collected but the majority did not
give a source, nor outline what English Language skills they hoped to use to analyse the
materials.

Reflections

This section comprised three entries on how the topic/issue/theme shaped the student’s
thinking; the use of language in the pieces; and the benefits/effects the process of completing
the SBA had on the student. The last entry was to be written in class after the completion of the
major part of the SBA exercise. The suggested length was 150 words for each entry.

On the one hand, numerous entries exceeded 500 words, and instead of presenting three
separate entries, many SBAs had one long essay for the reflection. Moderators had to ‘sift’
through the ‘essays’ to award marks. In many instances, the analysis asked the same questions
of each artefact, regardless of the kind of artefact. For example, a student who chose a cartoon
rendering of inappropriate dress would have shown how the piece set him/her thinking. The
second artefact with a worded reaction, however, was treated in the same way, rather than have
the language analysed. Although the majority of students ignored the suggested word limit,
many submitted the correct format and were able to score between three and five marks for
Entry 1/Reflection 1 and Entry 3/Reflection 3.

However, very few students scored more than two marks for the discussion of the use of
language (Entry 2/Reflection 2). This failure stems from failure to give examples of either
the figures of speech or literary devices that they had named, as they should have done to
show that they understood how such devices work to enhance the pieces and, by extension, the
project. Examples such as “The writer used similes in the piece” and “The author used many
devices such as alliteration in the poem” could not adequately be described as successful
attempts at examining the language. Some answers were also vague as in “Emma uses language
to illustrate why people take drugs” or “The use of language is effective because of the way the
words are used. It is also effective because of the way they were stated. It is also effective
because of the picture printed in one’s mind and also the effectiveness that it causes. The use of
language is effective because of the tone or tones that are used and the way that the words are
used and also how they were used and also when, why and where they were used. It is also
effective because of the way they were stated.”(INEFFECTIVE) This response was given full
marks by the class teacher BUT THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO. Teachers are
advised against the inflation of students’ scores as the moderation exercise will result in
the scores for the entire class being reduced using regression analysis.
Students generally seemed unable to describe the pictures chosen, and several simply repeated
the caption, as in: “This picture is an example of physical abuse”.

Written Report

The group had to choose three pieces of data (from their combined total of 15) and write a
report identifying the theme chosen, the processes/tasks involved in choosing the three pieces of
data (adequately identified), the reasons for the choices, an analysis of the data and the
outcomes of the research. The suggested length was 250300 words. The length was generally
adhered to and many reports showed evidence of good research. However, there were hundreds
of reports which indicated that the processes used in the group involved a ‘Divide and Conquer’
or ‘SOAPSTone’ approach (SOAPSTone (speaker, occasion, audience, purpose, subject, tone)
is an acronym for a series of questions used to help students write compositions. These reports
showed evidence of ‘plagiarism’ with paragraphs used in these projects being identical to the
photocopied texts submitted.

In addition, some reports did not identify three specific pieces but discussed the topic chosen
by each student as it related to the theme, spoke in general terms about the advantages/
disadvantages of working in a group, or discussed the three pieces chosen by the student whose
project was selected for moderation. Generally, the responses implied that the reports were not
‘group’ reports, or that there was a lack of clarity over what was required. Moderators also
noted that class teachers awarded full marks for reports which did not identify any of the pieces
and spoke in general terms about group work. Again, it must be pointed out that inflation of the
scores does not help students.