Page 97 - SEC_2017WorkingDocument_Neat

received from candidates about any aspect of the papers taken. However, TAC highlighted an
error, on Paper 2 in English A, which was raised by the SAC. For the comprehension passage
in Paper 2, a short paragraph was inadvertently added to the end of passage. The paragraph
contained information which bore some relationship to the content of the rest of the passage
but no questions were set on the paragraph. However, during the marking exercise, the
scripts of candidates were carefully reviewed to ensure that no candidate was disadvantaged
by the presence of the inadvertently included paragraph. Based on the discussions with the
SAC, it was evident that in seeking to paste the new comprehension passage over the space
used for the previous year’s paper, the CXC Compositor had failed to delete this last paragraph
from that previous year’s paper and this went, unnoticed, to the printers. TAC notes that this
is an unusual occurrence but it pointed to the need to improve the quality assurance
measures after preparing the paper for the printers.

86. TAC recommended that steps be taken to extend the same rigour of editing associated
with the preparation of the final version of the paper to the review of the output from the
Compositor before papers are sent to the printers.

87. FAC noted that there continued to be a few instances where the Moderators’
comments pointed to the need for a more careful review of the Paper 1 items to ensure that
the keys are properly identified among the options provided. This was particularly so in
instances where the position of keys may have been changed or where items were otherwise
revised. TAC had previously reported on this matter in its report on the January 2016
examinations.

88. In light of the continuing need for improvement in some dimensions of the paper
setting practices, TAC reiterated its earlier recommendation that quality assurance
procedures for paper setting “be carefully and comprehensively documented in a manual of
procedures to guide current and future staff with responsibility for giving directions for paper-
setting”.
89. FAC noted the comments that, in spite of the challenges identified, TAC was satisfied

that the recommendations pertaining to the award of grades for the January 2017 sitting were
based on sound judgments.
90. FAC was informed that the TAC subject reports provided a description and assessment

of how the CSEC January 2017 examinations performed as a measure of student achievement
in the 13 subjects. FAC noted that comments, suggestions and recommendations which may
be used by FAC in making and confirming grade awarding decisions, were included in the
subject reports.
91. FAC received the reports of the deliberation of the CSEC Subject Award Committee
®
FAC (7 – 19) 2017 in the order indicated below. The officers from the Examination
Development and Production Division (EDPD) presented the reports on behalf of the Chief
Examiners.

27