KS4 National/Foundation Welsh
Baccalaureate
Principal Moderators' Report
January 2017
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Grade boundary information for this subject is available on the WJEC public website at:
https://www.wjecservices.co.uk/MarkToUMS/default.aspx?l=en
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Enterprise and Employability
Challenge
Principal Moderator – Michael Hawthorne
The outcomes of the KS4 Enterprise and Employability Challenge continue to be
encouraging with many candidates producing quality work because of a detailed and well
planned approach to the Enterprise Challenge they had undertaken. There is generally great
enthusiasm shown by learners at all levels of ability which is promising and shows great
potential for its development in centres.
It is encouraging to see candidates inspired by the Challenge Brief set and becoming fully
involved in an enterprise which they enjoyed. This approach has led them to become fully
engrossed in the tasks and have shown enthusiasm for the concept, giving them the
opportunity to develop their creativity and interest to produce innovative ideas to a high
standard.
To achieve the highest marks candidates have identified and addressed each criterion within
each Learning Outcome and ensured that the necessary evidence exists. The most
successful candidates have shown immense enthusiasm and commitment which has
ensured that their evidence does address all the criteria within a Learning Outcome.
Learning Outcome 1
Be able to apply Creativity and Innovation
Some candidates addressed this criterion well by generating initial ideas as a result of
researching existing products. This allowed them to consider a wide range of possible ideas
and opportunities based on feasible solutions that broaden their outlook and encourage
them to generate a wider range of possible solutions.
Successful candidates used their research to generate a wide range of ideas (not just one
idea) within the group, analysing the strengths and weaknesses of each in order to select a
feasible, realistic and effective one to take forward and develop. However, a significant
number of candidates failed to generate a range of initial ideas which limited the marks
awarded.
This Learning Outome can be well developed with candidates working in a team where each
member brings forward one realistic idea as a result of research. By discussing the SWOT
analysis of each idea, the group can then take one idea forward giving reasons why the idea
was selected and other ideas rejected.
Many candidates do not achieve the higher marks due to a lack of clear evidence of how the
selected idea has been development. This development requires candidates to consider how
the chosen idea could be evolved, changed or improved in some way. While candidates
need to consider how these developments could improve their initial idea they should be
aware that in the end, as a result of analysis, they may consider the first idea was the best.
1
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
This is perfectly acceptable. The use of customer surveys and prototypes has helped many
candidates make informed decisions.
Candidates need to put significant detail into their evaluation of the process involved in
developing a new concept and reflect on its strengths and weaknesses to achieve the higher
bands.
Learning Outcome 2
Understand Personal Effectiveness
This Learning Outcome has shown significant improvement in this series. All candidates had
undertaken a skills audit in one of several forms but it is the analysis of the skills identified
that is needed to achieve higher marks. While most candidates considered their personal
skills, few considered team skills within their evidence.
Candidates need to undertake an audit or analysis of the skills they have identified and
consider how these skills are important for the Challenge and their role within the team.
They need to produce a plan of how they will develop and improve their skills. There were a
significant number of candidates that had considered which skills they needed to improve
and how they planned to improve them.
When conducting a skills audit, candidates should be encouraged not only to use a tick box
system but also to consider each skill in terms of why it is important, how it is useful in the
Challenge and what they can do to improve identified skills.
There was generally good recording of performance within the team through minutes of
meetings but it is important to recognise that all candidates need to identify their personal
contribution. Candidates who achieved lower marks did not always identify their individual
contribution, what they did when they worked as a team and how their skills were used to
best effect.
Many candidates evidenced time management and appropriate behaviour within a team
situation. Although many candidates encourage others in a team and allow the team to work
to their strengths evidence is needed to show that it has taken place.
Many candidates had clear and realistic reflection of the development and application of their
skills but still candidates tell a story of the enterprise initiative and do not actually reflect on
personal and team work skills which is required. Candidates could consider questions such
as 'what went well? What did not go so well? What would I / we do next time? '
Candidates need to realise that identifying improvements is not a weakness but a strength.
2
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Learning Outcome 3
Understand factors involved in an Enterprise and Employability
Challenge
Overall this Learning Outcome was well developed with candidates demonstrating a clear
understanding of the factors involved in developing a business proposal. Work was generally
well structured.
Candidates should be given the opportunity to be more creative in developjng their visual
display. Many had not included the full range of display materials that had been generated in
the development of the idea. Candidates should be encouraged to show their idea
generation and development in the display as well as any point of sale material, advertising,
costing and forecasts.
Candidates who had enthusiasm for the idea and product or service were more easily able
to convince others when it came to the pitch. Communication skills were generally
appropriate in carrying out the pitch, this was evidenced through speech notes. When
candidates had a well-structured and creatively developed visual display they were
successful in carrying out the pitch.
When candidates had produced graphics and/or prototypes as part of the idea development
process they were more structured in their approach and better able to communicate their
ideas with reason. Having an artefact as part of the pitch is often more engaging and
demonstrates detail and effective understanding when the presentation is made. Within the
pitch, candidates present some very good work, which often showed their idea
developments and reasoning behind the selection and rejection leading to the chosen idea.
Administration
Administration and submission of evidence was good in almost all centres. The use of
individual folders, kept candidate work in order. A copy of the Challenge Brief must be
included with the candidate work and this was almost always the case.
Most candidates presented their work in the order of the tasks which is good practice.
However, some had no order to the evidence which made the moderation process difficult.
It is good practice to identify the candidate input where group photographs are used.
3
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Global Citizenship Challenge
Principal Moderator – Caroline Hawke-Jones
This series for the Global Citizenship Challenge has presented an improved awareness of
the expected outcomes. As centres have become more confident interpreting the
assessment requirements, there has been a development in the understanding of what is
required. This is most encouraging.
This series has demonstrated that candidates are appreciating the relevance of being global
citizens. Candidates are showing they can understand complex global issues and whilst this
alone is reassuring, when combined with a development in the skills of critical thinking and
problem solving, and creativity and innovation, it shows that across Wales young people are
becoming better informed and able to present opinions and develop outcomes that can be
shared with others.
It is highly recommended that centres spend time with candidates discussing what is meant
by the terms detailed, basic and limited. Access to the assessment grid is an essential part
of the teaching and learning process for this Challenge.
Learning Outcome 1
Be able to apply Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
Many successful centres demonstrated careful consideration when choosing the topics for
the global issue. In this series there were several examples of national and local scenarios
and this clearly generated a feeling of natural interest and curiosity from the candidates.
Often, the more successful candidates were those who had been given a question to answer
in their Challenge Brief.
Centres that recognised the importance of differentiating the sources of information for the
Challenge had better outcomes. This has been highlighted in previous reports but its
importance warrants mentioning again. The choice of sources alongside the teaching and
learning (prior to starting the assessment) should enable candidates to be presented with
new sources, for them to understand the information in the sources and then extract enough
information to generate the standpoint. Sources should be varied in content and style.
If candidates do not understand what they are being asked to do and are faced with sources
of information beyond their reading levels, the outcomes will be limited. Mini challenges prior
to controlled assessment can familiarise candidates with what they need to do. It is essential
that centres factor in time to practice the skills needed to be successful.
The Challenge Brief can be presented with a different context, a different question and
different sources to enable all candidates to generate a successful outcome. Including the
Challenge Brief with each candidate's work is very important. This enables moderators to
read and understand what candidates have been asked to do and therefore this will be taken
into account during the moderation of the work.
4
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
There was a wide range of evidence of candidates' problem solving skills and this was
mainly focused on the sources of information. As in previous series, where centres had
provided contrasting sources of information, successful candidates were picking out relevant
PESTLE factors prior to writing their standpoints. Highlighting of the sources, summary
sheets and reviews of class discussions were all useful in preparation for writing the
standpoint.
Candidates who were able to comment on the credibility of the sources including the date
and author (or publisher) went on to include this information in their standpoints. This
process can be supported by using RURU (relevant, up to date, reliable and useful) or some
other problem solving technique. The most able candidates had picked good sources
themselves and applied the same problem solving techniques. Centres are reminded there
should be only four sources provided and the candidates can independently select two more.
There were many centres where candidates had written high quality standpoints. These
candidates had been taught to blend the information collected from the sources with their
understanding of PESTLE factors, credibility of the sources, alongside their own opinions
and opinions of others. Less successful outcomes were presented when standpoints were
segmented and consisted of separate sections about the sources and another section about
the PESTLE factors. Synthesis of all aspects cited in the assessment grid will generate
better outcomes. Candidates scored well when they provided solutions to the questions
being asked in the Challenge rief.
Reflections are getting stronger and candidates are recognising that they are reflecting on
the skills they are developing and not the outcomes. This is a positive development as in
previous series candidates often focused on just the standpoint.
Centres are reminded again that candidates are not allowed to use the Internet whilst
preparing for and whilst writing their standpoint. This is flagged up in moderation as a cause
for concern and centres will need to be able to address this issue in quality assurance visits
by Regional Support Officer.
Learning Outcome 2
Be able to apply Creativity and Innovation
For many centres there was a definite improvement in this Learning Outcome. This is really
encouraging. Most centres are now allowing candidates to make their own choice for the
raising awareness and this has generated some very interesting outcomes. It is essential
that candidates are given an ‘audience’ for which to develop their raising awareness
outcome. This provides a focus for the candidates' development.
Nearly all centres have encouraged candidates to identify a number of potential ideas and
again nearly all have recognised the need to make an initial evaluation of the ideas using
strengths and weaknesses (many used SWOT). For centres that were most successful, this
stage was just the start of the development and indeed many centres have now recognised
the need to present several stages of development to achieve better outcomes.
There are some centres still awarding high marks for a SWOT and then an outcome and this
is not enough. There must be evidence of development. This could be in the form of
research from the Internet for ideas, spider grams, action plans, mood boards, 1st draft
ideas, feedback from peers on draft ideas, 2nd draft of idea, further SWOT, final product,
5
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
feedback from audience, photos of stages and photos of final outcomes. Candidates could
use highlighters to show where text/images/data had changed from the previous draft. Many
successful candidates included a peer assessment of their final product. This was useful
information for their reflection.
Centres are reminded that it is not necessary to have ICT facilities to make good quality
outcomes. In this series a candidate had modified a T-shirt, another had written and
recorded a song, there were poems and there were many games, which were excellent
ways of raising awareness. However, it is expected that when the raising awareness
soutcome are handmade they should be neat and tidy and well presented. Equally the
stages of development should be neatly presented and not an afterthought. If the
candidates are given guidance before the controlled assessment about the stages of
development this may become a most enjoyable part of the Challenge.
Many centres presented PowerPoints, leaflets and posters for moderation which were often
very good, but centres must actively discourage the copying and pasting of large pieces of
information from the Internet for these types of outcomes.
In this series the reflections were improved with many candidates discussing their creative
and innovation skills, whilst there are still some reflecting on their raising awareness pack
only.
Learning Outcome 3
Understand the issues involved in a Global Citizenship Challenge
It was pleasing in this series how many candidates had said they enjoyed the Challenge and
the opportunity to gain a real life insight to an important global issue. Whether that issue
was presented on a local, national or international basis, candidates showed that they
understood the relevance of the Challenge and demonstrated understanding of the global
issue to varying degrees.
Successful candidates were able to discuss the global issue confidently in their standpoint.
This confidence was established early on when the relevant information was picked out in
the source packs. Through effective use of the sources, these candidates were able to link
the PESTLE factors to the global issue whilst taking into account the credibility of the
sources. These candidates were also able to explain how the PESTLE factors could be
viewed from different points of view. Understanding of the global issue was enhanced by the
candidates' own opinion and those of their peers.
Centres must consider the quality of sources, time for problem solving and a teaching and
learning programme that encourages candidates to present a standpoint which blends
PESTLE factors, credibility of sources, points of view and where appropriate solutions to the
global issue.
The development of the raising awareness packs are clearly improving and this must
continue because where this is in evidence the outcomes are better and candidates see a
clearer link to the Challenge rather than the pack being a quick outcome at the end. Some
centres should be commended for encouraging their candidate to be innovative and creative
even where sophisticated facilities are not available.
6
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Administration
Overall, the administration of the work was better this time in terms of paper work. However,
there were a number of centres that were late with their submissions. This is raised as a
cause for concern at moderation and centres must be accountable for the reliable
submission of work by WJEC deadlines.
Additionally centres are reminded that there are time constraints on the tasks and they must
be adhered to. In the next series candidate evidence must include a time.declaration sheet.
Of the work seen, there are still a small number of centres who are not standardising and
this is shown in the results. Equally, outcomes may be hampered by lack of annotation from
assessors. It cannot be stressed how valuable annotation is for moderators. Every centre
approaches the challenge in a slightly different way and therefore when looking at work in
isolation, a comment or word from an assessor as to the decision for a mark or a mark band
may help the moderator to understand the context in which the challenge has taken place.
This is another reason why it is essential to include the Challenge Brief for each candidate.
In a small number of Challenges, centres included notes about candidates being given extra
time or special consideration. This should always be supported with official documentation
from the centre's Examination Officer..
Centres should make sure work in placed into a consistent format of each task.
Centres must make sure where there is collaborative work for the raising awareness that a
student’s contribution is clear. Where photographs are used to help evidence the outcomes,
these must be clear and big enough for the moderator to see. Photographs of raising
awareness packs are only expected when the pack is too large to send for moderation.
Photographs of standpoints and problem solving outcomes are not acceptable.
7
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Community Challenge
Principal Moderator – Catrin Evans
The outcomes of the KS4 Community Challenge were very encouraging this series with
clear evidence that the most successful centres are able to provide purposeful activities
which provide sufficient opportunity for candidates to demonstrate independence and
responsibility. As a result the evidence presented showed candidates had fully engaged
with the Challenge and were able to complete each of the necessary tasks to provide
appropriate evidence for all Learning Outcomes.
Centre planning is key to ensure the Community Challenge is a success as in some cases
despite choosing suitable briefs, their implementation didn’t allow sufficient opportunity for
learners to achieve the higher bands. This was often due to the planned activity being too
short for detailed and effective planning and reflection or because the activity had been over
simplified. This could be a result of sharing a task amongst too many candidates (eg. whole
class), or because the candidates didn’t have overall responsibility for their chosen activity
(eg. assisting with a beach clean). Centres are reminded that activities such as babysitting,
dog walking and bicycle audits do not provide opportunity for planning or skills development
and so should be avoided in future.
Most centres chose to approach the Challenge as a team task and the majority did so
correctly. A small number of centres must address the size of the team in future as it is
stated in the specification as 3 to 6 members. Whole class or partner tasks do not fulfil the
requirements. Although the activity itself is carried out as a team, centres are reminded that
the majority of evidence will be completed individually and so with the exception of some
components of Task 2 (eg. opportunities and risks, resources, lesson plans) there must be
individuality in the evidence presented as candidates “must provide an individual response
as part of any task outcome” (page 33 of specification).
The most accurate assessment was seen by centres when all criteria of the Learning
Outcomes were clearly applied to the evidence presented by candidates. A number of
centres were over generous in their assessment and would often reference work that was
“restricted in size, amount or content” (description of “limited” on page 44 of specification) as
“detailed”. Centres are reminded that only the evidence presented can be considered during
assessment.
Learning Outcome 1
Be able to apply Planning and Organising
The most successful work began with a clear and focused brief allowing the candidates to
present appropriate and realistic aims and objectives that were relevant to the work
undertaken. This was assisted when the 10 hours was linked to purposeful activities as
candidates would present detailed and effective planning relating to what the intended to do
during the activity. Where planning was poorly completed candidates tended to focus on the
preparation with little consideration for what they intended to do during the activity itself.
8
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
The completion of the Skills audit and/or PDR shouldn’t feature in the planning process
which should focus solely on the 10 hour Community activity.
The most successful candidates were given a sufficient Challenge in terms of length of the
given activity and its complexity which allowed for detailed and effective planning amongst
all members of a group.
There were fantastic examples of lesson plans with Coaching Briefs and candidates were
able to show clear evidence for monitoring and development as they revised plans between
deliveries when asked to repeat sessions more than once or reflect and adapt ideas when
teaching over a longer period of time.
The most successful candidates showed consideration for the various examples of content
listed in the specification (page 28) such as setting targets, required resources, risks but this
was inconsistent across centres.
Many candidates do not achieve the best marks as the planning lacks detail and centres are
encouraged to use the glossary (pages 42-43 of specification) to gain a better understanding
of the differentiators used across each band.
The use of templates was effective by some centres to facilitate band 1 learners; however
centres are reminded that using templates and leading questions for all candidates will limit
accessibility to higher band marks as they tend to restrict learner response and can lead to
work being too similar across candidates.
Reflection should remain a focus for teaching and learning programmes as many candidates
tended to describe the activity as opposed to provide evaluating comments on the planning
process itself.
Learning Outcome 2
Understand Personal Effectiveness
All candidates had undertaken a skills audit in one of several forms but it is the analysis of
the skills identified that is needed to achieve higher marks. Presenting a computer generated
audit alone isn’t sufficient.
When conducting a skills audit candidates should be encouraged not only to use a tick box
system but also to consider each skills in terms of why it’s important and how it relates to this
particular community activity. In very few instances candidates appeared to present a skills
audit which was focused on the Enterprise and Employability Challenge.
Most successful candidates included a clear plan for improvement with a focus on why these
skills were relevant to their chosen activity and how they could be developed during the
“doing” aspect of the Challenge.
Those with a well-structured Personal Digital Record in which they clearly documented the
implementation of their plan were also able to demonstrate effective performance of own role
and responsibilities during the activity as they included commentary and/or evaluations of
what they did throughout the 10 hours.
9
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Although reflection for this Learning Outcome tended to be stronger than LO1 those not
reaching the higher marks tended to describe their skills as opposed to reflect on their
development providing examples or justifications for improvements/areas for future
development.
Learning Outcome 3
Be able to participate in a Community Challenge
When a well-defined brief was provided, candidates were able to show consideration of the
purpose and benefit of the activity, usually in the form of an introduction to the Personal
Digital Record. Those reaching the higher marks would identify the purpose and benefit in
relation to their chosen community as well as the benefits the activity provides for them
individually. In a minority of cases this was too generic across candidates and centres are
reminded that this should be completed individually.
Centres are reminded that the Challenge requires “10 hours carrying out the ‘doing’ aspect
of the challenge through working with or in the community” which does not include time
planning the activity. Although a significant number of candidates met the requirement with
purposeful and valuable activities, there was evidence in some to the contrary. Failing to
provide opportunity for the required hours not only hinders learners but also has a
detrimental effect on the planning and organisation as well as their ability to demonstrate
efficient and effective performance.
A variety of Challenge briefs were seen which provided learners with the opportunity to
undertake valuable and purposeful community activities. The most successful briefs tended
to be those relating to Coaching and Neighbourhood Enhancement and were worded to
include sufficient detail so that the candidate could clearly identify the purpose and benefit of
the activity within the community which resulted in stronger planning and implementation.
Although a confirmation statement was provided by the majority of centres, its completion
wasn’t always appropriate. Centres are reminded that only the statement which best reflects
the candidate’s participation during the “doing” aspect of the Challenge should be chosen.
Additional comments relating to the candidate’s participation is useful for moderation in order
to better understand the marks allocated however these should be applicable to the
individual candidate and not a general comment that is used for the cohort as a whole.
As part of the Challenge candidates are required to produce electronic evidence in the form
of Personal Digital Record which includes each of the necessary tasks. This was completed
well by many however some centres must encourage candidates to save work digitally as
opposed to scanning previously printed work.
Candidates who achieved highest marks included a well-structured and personal
Participation Record. This documented the implementation of their plan and showed what
they personally did during the 10 hours. There was good use of annotated photographs and
in a few cases videos of sessions or interviews were included. The use of videos is
commended and can be a good way to log their chosen activity; however candidates must
be encouraged to use videos that are relevant to their participation as opposed to a generic
clip.
10
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Administration
On the whole centres presented well organised work which arrived on time. Those received
digitally were well structured with a clearly labelled file for each candidate individually. In a
few instances there were issues with opening certain pieces of work on the USB and centres
are encouraged to check all files are correctly saved before posting the sample.
A copy of the every Challenge Brief reflected within the sample must be included with the
work as it allows the moderator to understand the context of the work.
In a few instances assessor confirmation sheets were missing which are necessary to
confirm each candidate has completed 10 hours of active and purposeful participation.
Centres must also remember to include all assessor front sheets to indicate what mark has
been awarded for each Learning Outcome.
Centres must allow candidates to produce electronic evidence in the form of a Personal
Digital Record and centres are reminded that workbooks both paper and digital hinder
candidates from accessing the higher bands. Candidates should save the work digitally as
those which were printed and then re-scanned were difficult to read in some cases.
11
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Individual Project
Principal Moderator – Rebecca Davies
A significant number of Projects were submitted with very low marks being awarded by the
centre (and agreed with at moderation). Centres should consider whether it would be
beneficial to some candidates to submit their work in the Summer series to ensure that they
have developed sufficient skills to be able to successful complete this aspect of the Skills
Challenge Certificate, bearing in mind the 50% weighting. It was clear that for a number of
centres the Indoividual Project had been completed before candidates had developed all 7
skills sufficiently throught the Challenges and this hindered their achievement of the higher
mark band for learning outcomes. The Individual Projects is the means for candidates to
showcase their skills.
There were also a few instances of candidates working collaboratively on Projects; this
aspect of the qualification must be carried out individually.
The majority of centres submitted the Project in a written format and very few artefact
submissions were seen. Although it is recognised that delivering just one of these formats is
easier to manage within a centre, it is evident that some candidates may have benefitted
from completing the artefact format to allow them to demonstrate a different set of skills – the
assessment criteria can meet the needs of both academic and ‘practical’ candidates.
The annotation of work is imperative to indicate how assessor judgements have been made,
and to secure those judgements during the moderation process. This is particularly
important when evidence can be found holistically throughout the Project. For example,
Learning Outcome 3, in considering the credibility of sources, which can be found in various
sections of the Project.
It was noted that some candidates exceeded the advised word count of 1000-2000 words by
a considerable amount. Whilst it is encouraging to see candidates fully engaged in their
studies, centres need to be aware that exceeding the word-count to such an extent, could
potentially have an impact on the overall mark awarded to the candidate. If candidates have
exceeded the word count by a vast amount, it could be perceived that the aims and
objectives are not appropriate (Learning Outcome 1) and that the Outcome itself, is not fit for
purpose (Learning Outcome 6).
Several centres had encouraged candidates to refer to both Wales and a wider region in
their work. This approach is no longer a requirement. Whilst candidates may prefer to
consider their work within the context of a region, a direct comparison between two regions
is unnecessary.
Topics were often varied which encouraged candidates and motivated them throughout the
completion of the Project. Some titles were rather ambitious and difficult to address within
the perimeters of the advised word count within the specification. Projects with a smaller
focus tended to be more successful as this allowed candidates to write in a more detailed
way, rather than to have superficial coverage on the topic.
12
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
In the specification, it is stated that candidates "carry out a research activity in an area of
personal interest or that reflects future educational or career aspirations", however some
centres misinterpreted this with candidates investigating two career options which is included
in the Advanced Enterprise and Employability Challenge. This approach was not effective in
allowing candidates to fully meet the demands of the criteria. For the the Individual Project
candidates could research an issue or concept linked to their selected career choice.
With regards to the writing of titles, it is clear that centres need to consider their suitability
and provide support to candidates to ensure an appropriate focus. Titles should not be too
broad in nature so that they are manageable for candidates within the perimeters of the
advised word count. However, neither is it advised that candidates are given titles in a
blanket fashion as candidates benefit from having some autonomy over the devising of titles.
Titles are generally more effective when written in the form of a question for a written project
and a statement for an artefact. The title in the form of a question also supports the
candidate to stay focused throughout the completion of the Project.
In terms of the assessment, it was found that centres were far too generous in awarding
marks and several centres needed to have marks adjusted. Whilst centres tended to be
accurate with the assessment in the lowers bands, there was an issue with the assessment
at the top bands. Centres are reminded that work can only be assessed based on the
evidence presented. This must be addressed for future series to ensure a valid and fair
mark to candidates. Furthermore, accurate and consistent assessment is required to avoid
further sampling from the centre. A robust internal standardisation within centres would
allow over-assessment and inconsistencies across assessors to be identified prior to
external moderation.
Learning Outcome 1
Identify the focus and scope
Introductions were generally quite well written and allowed candidates to set the context and
purpose of the Project. However, the overall mark awarded for this Learning Outcome was
often impacted by the quality of the aims and objectives. The writing of aims and objectives
should form an integral part of the teaching and learning of the Project. Where aims and
objectives lacked appropriateness, this impacted on the success of the Project as a whole.
Some candidates wrote aims and objectives that were far too broad and therefore
unachievable. Several candidates referred to methods of collecting information that should
be placed within the rationale. For example, gather opinions on the NHS is information
required and therefore an objective whilst create a questionnaire and give to 30 people is the
method to carry out the obkjective.
Centres are reminded to refer to the Delivery Handbook available from WJEC to support the
teaching and learning of how to write aims and objectives to ensure candidates select the
most appropriate action verbs.
13
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Learning Outcome 2
Select and plan research methods
Rationales allowed candidates the opportunity to be able to explain how they intended to
meet their objectives by referring to their chosen research methods. Rationales were
sometimes a little generic stating that primary and secondary sources would be used without
additional justification for choices.
Examples of good practice include candidates commenting on sampling strategies for their
primary research and why they had selected particular approaches to their research
methods.
Templates were used by a small minority of centres, however, this approach is not advised
as it can restrict more-able candidates in providing detailed rationales and did not always link
to specific objectives.
Learning Outcome 3
Select, collate, reference and assess the credibility
In relation to primary information, candidates typically opted to use questionnaires. Please
ensure that questionnaires are vetted within centres before being distributed to the public, as
some questions were deemed intrusive in nature, relating to sensitive subjects, such as
abortion and mental health issues. This clearly has the potential to offend respondents and
the ethical aspects of primary research should form part of the teaching and learning
programme.
Questionnaires are a vital tool to collect information and some questionnaires within the
sample were only asking respondents a limited number of questions, which did not return a
sufficient amount of qualitative and quantitative information.
Candidates must also ensure that the questions they are posing are relevant to the title of
their Project, as on occasions some questions were deemed irrelevant to the title of the
Project. Please ensure that a single copy of the questionnaire is included in the appendix
so that the moderator is able to consider the standard of the questions posed.
Candidates used a range of sources to carry out secondary research and took advantage of
government sites to obtain reliable and current information, however work was not always
referenced effectively.
Despite candidates being able to select a range of primary and secondary sources, marks
for this particular Learning Outcome were often impacted by the lack of reference to the
credibility of sources. There was usually acknowledgement of the reliability of sources but
reference to currency, and validity were less apparent across submissions in this series. An
area for development for the majority of centres is for the credibility of sources to form an
integral part of the teaching and learning, so that candidates are more secure about their
definitions.
14
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Candidates often used the rationale to comment on the credibility of sources, however
comments were also found holistically throughout other areas of the Project such as the
main body, conclusion, reflection and sometimes in an annotated bibliography.
Learning Outcome 4
Analyse numerical data and display using digital techniques
Centres need to ensure that this Learning Outcome is developed more significantly.
Numerical analysis was weak - candidates were reliant on questionnaires to be able to
demonstrate the analysis of data which was very simplistic; however the type of questions
posed were not always linked to initial titles.
It is essential that candidates are able to demonstrate the ability to handle data effectively
and Maths departments should be able to advise candidates on what techniques can be
used. It was pleasing to note that candidates from one centre had made good use of box
and whisker diagrams. Centres are reminded that data can be found from websites not just
via a questionnaire. Previous CPD has provided some examples of how to analyse
secondary data effectively.
Whilst it is recognised that candidates are embracing digital techniques in the use of webbased systems such as Survey Monkey, these types of systems generate graphs and charts
automatically and therefore candidates are unable to fully demonstrate their ability to
organise and display data themselves. Furthermore, candidates did not always display nor
analyse the numerical data obtained in the most effective way. Some charts and graphs
were not labelled effectively – pie charts for example, did not always display percentages.
As a development point for future submissions, centres should encourage candidates to
draw some comparisons between their primary and secondary research to show an
appropriate understanding of how their primary findings relates to their secondary findings.
There were very few examples of candidates who had collated secondary data and
displayed it in charts and graphs.
Learning Outcome 5
Synthesis, analyse and use information and viewpoints
Candidates were able to organise and synthesise their primary and secondary findings
appropriately and to some extent provide some analysis on those findings. As work was not
always referenced effectively, it was sometimes difficult to identify the origin of the source.
Many candidates did not include viewpoints whether their own or from others and it was
clear that candidates had not previously completed the Global Citizenship Challenge and
developed critical thinking and problem solving skills.
When candidates had been given autonomy in the selection of titles and study an area of
personal interest, they were able to demonstrate a good level of knowledge and
understanding.
15
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Learning Outcome 6
Produce and present an outcome
Centres were generally comfortable with this aspect of the criteria and candidates were able
to present their outcome successfully.
Most candidates were able to demonstrate a range of basic skills throughout the completion
of their Individual Projects and presented a final outcome that mostly addressed the Project
aims. Candidates used some relevant skills and techniques to be able to present their
research in an appropriate format.
Less able candidates clearly found it difficult to meet the demands of the criteria in terms of
communicating meaning and expressing viewpoints - an example of how the artefact format
may have been more accessible to them.
The few candidates that had produced an artefact had developed a production record that
clear presented how they produced their artefact.
Learning Outcome 7
Make judgements and draw conclusions
In the conclusion, candidates should provide evidence-based comments in relation to their
findings for each aim; this provides a logical approach to its completion. Often, candidates
referred solely to the sources that they had used throughout the completion of the Project
and how they had been of use to them.
Where candidates were able to comment on the topic itself, summative judgements often
lacked detail. Centres should encourage candidates to consider each aim/objective in turn
and sum up the main findings of each one.
Candidates were often able to secure marks based on the judgements that they made
throughout the Project as a whole.
Learning Outcome 8
Evaluate own performance in managing an Individual Project
It is evident that candidates often found it difficult to reflect on their performance and to
comment on how effectively they carried out the Project. Again, some learners focused
predominantly on sources and neglected to discuss the various other aspects of the
completion processes that are involved with completing an Individual Project.
To improve on this particular Learning Outcome, candidates could refer to their application of
the seven skills that are developed throughout the WB qualification as a whole (Literacy,
Numeracy, Digital Literacy, Critical Thinking and Problem Solving, Planning and
Organisation, Creativity and Innovation and Personal Effectiveness). This would provide a
useful structure for them to follow in referring to planning and completion etc.
16
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
In order to alleviate the issue whereby candidates have experienced difficulties in
adhering to the word count due to the demands of the eight Learning Outcomes, it is
advised that the self-evaluation is placed outside the main piece of research project
and that candidates place it at the end of the appendix. This will allow candidates
produce a more detailed reflection and not be limited by the number of words that are
remaining.
Administration
A small number of centres were contacted to request assessor/candidate signatures. This
had the potential to impact upon the moderation process, however was generally dealt with
promptly.
There were several instances of administration issues – calculation errors on the
assessment sheets and also inputting errors where the marks that had been input into IAMIS
differed to those on the assessment sheets. Whilst this may have been unintentional, it is
imperative that the totalling of marks is checked during the internal standardisation process
to ensure that the marks that are awarded to candidates are accurate. It would also be
useful for centres to have a checking method when inputting marks electronically.
17
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.