The Scottish Baccalaureate in Expressive Arts

EV Commentary – Exemplar 1

GradeA and C Projects

NOTE:For exemplification purposes A and C grade versions of a project theme have been produced. This is to provide support for centres with the assessment of the Interdisciplinary Project. To highlight the grade criteria and for the purpose of the exercise, the External Verifier has written a commentary which compares the two versions. However, centres should be aware that the Interdisciplinary Project is a criterion referenced unit so candidates should be assessed against the assessment criteria only and should not be compared with other candidates.

Proposal

The project theme is very interesting and considers how drama and role-play could help people with Additional Support Needs to develop personal skills which would help them cope in the wider community.

The “A Candidate”April Anderson has clearly set out objectives and her project reflects career, study and family circumstances. Her goals are challenging yet realistic and she has clearly thought about the skills she will be able to develop in the course of the IP. The explanation as to how the project meets the two broad contexts is impressive and is an example of good practice. There is a carefully argued justification of the proposal which clearly meets all the A criteria as wellas the C.

Although the “C Candidate” Karen Buchanan’s Proposal was approved, it was felt by her Assessor that she did not show how herresearch would be used for lesson preparation. She was asked to re-submit her proposal but did not do so. It is very important at the early stages of the IP that candidates take on board assessor advice and resubmit their amended proposal if necessary. Karen’s proposal reflects her interest in Drama and her desire to be a primary teacher. Her only proposed contacts outwith her school are the local shops/amenities and the Special needs Unit connected to the school. She met all the C criteria but only one aspect of the As, failing to carefully justifyher proposal and show understanding of possible connections across disciplines.

Both candidates have spent a great deal of timethinking about skills development and while April’s show insight and maturity, Karen’s,although still more than acceptable,is at times peppered with some doubt and uncertainty.

Plan

Again April fully meets the criteria for both a C and an A. The following could be highlighted; shehas clearly detailed timescales which along with her progress log and video diary and weekly meetings with her mentor will help keep her on track to achieve her outcomes. The Plan itself has three relevant and well thought-out objectives which are realistic and detailed. She has clearly thought out the resources human and otherwise that she will need to access. Her proposed presentation methods are appropriate as is also the target audience for her project findings.

In conclusion, April has produced a very thorough, well thought-out plan with detailed timescales, agreed objectives, detailed resources and suggested contingencies.

Karen’s Plan is fairly well thought out and expands on the proposal, although it is perhaps repetitive. She has timescales which are realistic, but these could perhaps include more detail apart from the months of August and September which are sufficiently so. It is recommended that candidates do try to make their timescales as detailed as possible. Karen’s contingencies and dependencies have been touched on but could have been thought out in greater detail. She has identified a target audience and appropriate format for the delivery of her presentation and project findings. This Plan demonstrates the need for a good Proposal, which is vital if a candidate wants to go on and achieve a B or A award.

Again the candidate satisfies all the Ccriteria for her plan but met none of the A criteria.Her Assessor comments that Karen “remained a bit vague” during discussionsof contingencies and dependencies at weekly meetings.

Presentation of Project Findings/Product.

April delivered her Project findings in a very comprehensive and impressive fashion to both external and internal agencies including parents/carers and family of people with ASN, staff from a learning centre,as well as her drama teacher and fellow students from her AH drama classand senior students in the form of a video presentation. On the following day she did a further presentation to drama teachers and support staff in her school.This also involved the steps taken to implement her project, outlining her aims, her findings and her evaluation of the overall process.

The assessor commented that April “demonstrated a high degree of confidence and enthusiasm throughout….while also disseminating the high amount of work she had done. She received very positive feedback from her audience”.She was “confident and showed an understanding of using drama as a tool to aid learning and understanding”The candidate’s own comments on the success of her Presentation are fully backed up by these comments of the Assessor which evidence a highly successful and impressive presentation and one which readily meets the criteria for both Cand A.

Karen’s brief description of her Presentation is merely factual with a brief reason for her choice of audience. “I invited this audience as I thought they would be the most interested in what I had done throughout my project.”Her Assessor comments: “Karen showedconfidence when presenting her project and did it in a competent manner. However, there was much more scope for research and how she could have used this. Her video did not fully justify some of the points she was trying to makebut it was well edited “. “She received very positive feedback from her audience… It was a creative way of showing her progress”. In this section Karen met some aspects of the A criteria.

Evaluation of Project

April presents a very detailed evaluation of her project, with an honest and incisive appraisal of every aspect of her project, the planning, implementation and findings. The comments of herAssessor are glowing in terms of how she has dealt with every stage of the process. The Assessor states, “April’s evaluation of her project shows that she has thought carefully about each stage of the project and has taken suggestions on board from a number of sources. Not only has she recognised problems, but she has dealt with them efficiently”Her taking ownership of her own learning, and being able to work independently while still seeking advice and feedback is also an impressive feature of this IP. This section again meets all of the C and A criteria.

Karen gives a very frank evaluation of her project in terms of the following;

  • Her over reliance on help at times from teachers
  • Her lateness in contacting local shops/amenities
  • How her first lesson had not gone well but how she was able to discuss her strengths and weaknesses with her drama teacher
  • How she thought she “did well in communicating my project to my audience during my presentation and was able to answer all the questions at the end”.

Karen’s Assessor stated that “she did achieve what she set out todo…. With some support, she did produce some competent lesson plans….She was always willing to accept advice and act on it”. Again Karen comfortably met the C criteria but none of the A.

Self-evaluation of generic/cognitive skills development

April shows a very honest, mature and reflective approach to her cognitive and generic skills development, dealing with each skill in great detail, and demonstrates a high degree of autonomy. Throughout she shows great abilityin working independently and with others while taking ownership of her own learning.

In conclusion, April clearly achieves an A grade in all areas According to her Assessor, “She requested little support and made extremely appropriate decisions on her own. The project was well-focused, well managed and the Progress Log was clear and updated regularly. The delivery, aims and purpose of the final presentation were excellent” A study of her skills development portrays a young person who has excellent interpersonal skills, someone who can work independently and collaboratively, and importantly,someone whose skills have clearly improved during the course of the project.

Karen’s self-evaluation is very detailed, honest and frank- she has evaluated her strengths and weaknesses and identified areas for further development. She concludes; “I found the evaluation side of the project very useful. Through keeping a reflective log and video diary, I was able to note the good and not so good aspects of the work I was doing. This helped me to solve problems as they arose but also provided a very good record of my skills development and a basis for the evaluation and self-evaluation.”

Overview

In conclusion, it is obvious that Karen has worked very hard on her project, has achieved her objectivesand has clearly passed her IP. Karen’s project was hampered from the outset at the proposal stage by the narrow range of research which impacted on the whole IP. She should perhaps have taken the opportunity of resubmitting her proposal. With a broader range of research activities and more contacts, Karen could have further developed her interpersonal skills and independent learning, more of the A criteria could have been met and she could have been awarded a B. There was a reluctance at times on her part to take ownership of the project and an over reliance at times on support and advice from others, not only at the initial stages. Karen could arguably have had 2 or 3 more A criteria boxes ticked, but it was felt by the Assessor that she did not quite merit this. Having therefore only achieved 2 of the A criteria-not enough for a B award-, it was felt that the appropriate award should be a C.

There are full, thorough and robust Assessor comments throughout. Excellent, detailed and insightful comments throughout not only help support the candidate, but also help the Centre reach its judgement, help ensure quality assurance and facilitate the task of External Verification.