Page 1379 - SUBSEC October 2017_Neat

FIGURE 3
DISTRIBUTION OF GRADES BY PROFILE FOR CSEC® VISUAL ARTS FOR THE YEARS 2012–2016

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
DRAWING % Cand. PAINTING AND MIXED MEDIA % Cand.
GRAPHIC AND COMM. DESIGN % Cand. PRINT MAKING % Cand.
TEXTILE DESIGN AND MANI. % Cand. SCULPTURE AND CERAMICS % Cand.
LEATHERCRAFT % Cand. FIBRE AND DECORATIVE ARTS % Cand.
REFLECTIVE JOURNAL % Cand.

Reliability and Validity Issues

13. The Assistant Registrar/EDPD reported that there was adequate content validity of the test scores
in CSEC® Visual Arts from 2012 to 2016. He also indicated that syllabus coverage over the five-year period
under review was very consistent, with most of the specific objectives being sampled annually. Most of
the objectives are performance based which means that the assessment is best done using practical
production strategies. The Assistant Registrar/EDPD reported that the reliability for the examination was
generally acceptable for the period under review.

CHIEF EXAMINER’S REPORT

14. The meeting received the report of the Chief Examiner who noted that there was an improvement
in the overall performance for CSEC® Visual Arts. She raised concerns regarding the poor quality of work
submitted by some candidates who sit the examination. She also noted that based on recurring
weaknesses the problem may be as a result of:

(a) deficiencies in the content knowledge and pedagogy of art educators; and,

(b) shortcomings in the CSEC® Visual Arts Syllabus.

15. The Chief Examiner in her report also presented a number of underlying issues for consideration
by the Review Committee.

7