Page 1515 - SUBSEC October 2017_Neat

(iv) As noted earlier, marking for several subjects was not completed within the
scheduled time and this affected TAC’s scheduled meetings with the various
SACs. TAC called attention to the recommendations made by a number of SACs,
these included (i) recruit, train and retain enough e-markers for each subject to
assure the efficient and timely completion of the marking exercise, (ii) improve
the efficiency of the re-standardization or re-assignment of markers who were
suspended because of a repeated failure to conform to the marking standard for
a particular question and (iii) implement a system for responding promptly to
markers’ queries so that they may be able to engage the marking without
unnecessary loss of time.

(v) After five years of the e-marking experience, a comprehensive evaluation of the
processes should be conducted to determine areas for improvement, and the
specific actions that should be taken. TAC reiterated its earlier recommendation
that such an evaluation should benefit from inputs of critical stakeholders,
including Chief Examiners, whose feedback can contribute to the identification
of specific areas that required attention and measures that should be adopted
for improvement.

(vi) For Paper 020 of two of its CSEC Examinations, English A and Mathematics, some
candidates received question and answer booklets that were incorrectly
collated. In the case of CSEC Mathematics, the first pages were: 6, followed by
7; then 4 followed by 5 and a page on which they were instructed that they
should not write. It was only after these pages that the sheet with the
instructions appeared, followed by pages 8 to 35 in good order. Similarly, in the
case of English A the first pages were: 6, followed by 7; then 4 followed by 5 and
a page on which they were instructed that they should not write. Also, it was
only after these pages that the sheet with the instructions appeared, followed
by pages 8 to 27 in good order. Given the way in which papers are scanned and
distributed for marking, it was not possible to identify, during marking, the
candidates who received booklets with pages that were out of sequence. The
SACs for the two subjects reviewed the performance of candidates on the Paper
020 for each of the two subjects, and paid special attention to those questions
that were out of order for some question and answer booklets, to determine
whether there was any apparent challenge that affected the performance of
candidates. A minor adjustment was made to the cut-scores of the two subjects
to offset any possible disadvantage that a candidate may have suffered. In light
of this experience with these two question and answer booklets, TAC
recommended that this matter be investigated properly so as to ascertain the
cause of this error and to ensure that appropriate measures be put in place to
avoid a repetition.

(vii) Many initiatives were taken to improve the examination papers of both the CSEC
and CAPE subjects, this included the resolution of the issue of optional questions
and the framing of questions in a more structured manner to facilitate a common
interpretation by candidates across different schools and countries. However,
TAC noted that there were still a few instances where errors occurred on papers,
for example, in CAPE Literatures in English where one question asked candidates
to refer to lines 1 to 8 of a stimulus when it was intended that they should refer

26