December 2005 PCR borderline review - AAT

The AAT has decided to revisit candidates’ performances in task 2.1 (d) of the December 2005 Contributing to Planning and Control of Resources (PCR) exam.

In order to get the information about the review of task 2.1 (d) out quickly, we are writing to the Approved Assessment Centres (AAC) with a list of their students who may potentially benefit from this review. At the same time we have arranged for the relevant scripts to be collated and sent to the new Chief Assessor for reassessment.

We are aware that there are approximately 700 students who are entered for exams in June who may benefit from the review. While the review is carried out they should continue with their studies, as some of them may still need to sit in June. It is our aim to complete the review and inform students directly of any change in outcome by Friday 26 May. If we can get the information out to students and AACs sooner we will endeavour to do so.

The Chief Assessor for this paper had highlighted reasons for poor performance in this task in his December 2005 report on candidates’ performance in general. An extract from the report is given below.

“In the substantive task, for both the flexed budget and the actual results, candidates were explicitly asked to show the turnover, the ‘marginal (or variable) costs of that turnover’, the contribution and the operating profit. They were then asked to complete the statement by calculating any resulting variance.

…One clear reason why candidates performed so badly on this task was that they seemed to be unaware of the marginal (or variable) costing concept. This would suggest that some candidates had been mechanically instructed to place certain parts of the task data in particular locations irrespective of understanding or context.”

You can access the full report by visiting http://www.aat.org.uk/students/display/store4/item994/
and by selecting the December 2005 PCR Chief Assessor’s report.

Although the Chief Assessor had pinpointed a gap in students’ knowledge, the lower than expected success rate was still a disappointment to us all, especially as the feedback on Section 2 was positive. The feedback we received, immediately after and since the exam, is that the tasks in Section 2 were straightforward and similar to past tasks.

The AAT places a high value on the views of its customers and your concerns are our concerns. Although the competency levels for each section compared favourably with past papers, and there were no signs that the markers in general had deviated from the marking scheme, we asked the new Chief Assessor to monitor those scripts going through the December 2005 enquiries and appeals procedure.

Just before the annual AAC conference at the end of April, the new Chief Assessor completed his review of December scripts. His findings confirmed that a significant number of students had made a fundamental error in task 2.1 (d) that had cost them success in the exam.

The enquiries and appeals procedure gave the new Chief Assessor the opportunity to study a large body of scripts at length. As a result of this extended study he proposed an altered approach to the marking scheme for future use, which he also asked the AAT to consider applying retrospectively to the December 2005 scripts if approved by a scrutineer. The scrutineer has agreed the revised scheme.

The exams require students to demonstrate their ability to transfer skills, knowledge and understanding into different situations. Students will therefore only achieve most of the credit available, and succeed in the exam, if they focus and answer the tasks set in the paper. Our marking schemes will continue to include alternative valid answers but we also want to ensure that our marking schemes award a small amount of credit for demonstrating knowledge of acceptable related concepts.

Naturally, we are concerned that a number of students have made such a fundamental error and appear to lack practical experience. We will continue to advise tutors and students to address areas of weakness through the Chief Assessors’ reports, masterclasses and specific articles as required. However, in this instance we do think that students who have demonstrated competence, even by a small margin, should not be denied the opportunity for success. The AAT reassesses all borderline scripts as part of its marking process before results are finalised and released to students. On this occasion we have decided that it is appropriate to extend the borderlining process to reassess a larger proportion of candidates’ performance in task 2.1 (d).

Susan Harper
Exams Manager
Education and Training Division