Moderators Report/

Principal Moderator Feedback

Summer 2013

Project Qualification

Foundation Project (P101)

Higher Project (P201)
Edexcel and BTEC Qualifications

Edexcel and BTEC qualifications come from Pearson, the UKs largest awarding body.
We provide a wide range of qualifications including academic, vocational, occupational
and specific programmes for employers. For further information visit our qualifications
websites at www.edexcel.com or www.btec.co.uk. Alternatively, you can get in touch
with us using the details on our contact us page at www.edexcel.com/contactus.

Pearson: helping people progress, everywhere

Pearson aspires to be the worlds leading learning company. Our aim is to help
everyone progress in their lives through education. We believe in every kind of
learning, for all kinds of people, wherever they are in the world. Weve been involved
in education for over 150 years, and by working across 70 countries, in 100
languages, we have built an international reputation for our commitment to high
standards and raising achievement through innovation in education. Find out more
about how we can help you and your students at: www.pearson.com/uk

Summer 2013
Publications Code PR036685
All the material in this publication is copyright
Pearson Education Ltd 2013
Foundation Projects Qualification

Introduction

Projects follow the same processes as traditional GCSEs and GCEs. As with
any GCSE or GCE, each unit is awarded to ensure that the standard is
established and will be maintained.

It is necessary to ensure consistency of standard in each examination

window and as a result of this, grade boundaries may be subject to change.

Suitability of work submitted

Level 1 Foundation projects moderated this series were linked to Principal

Learning for the current diploma lines of learning or were completed as a
standalone project. Within the standalone element some projects were
extensions of other routes of study but the majority were standalone
projects.

At this level the majority of projects were in the form of written reports,
although several centres supported their students to provide artefact
projects. It is clear from the work submitted that this type of project is very
motivating for level 1 students.

Projects that were submitted as part of the full Diploma qualification

demonstrated good links to the Principal Learning of the relevant line of
learning. Most of the projects submitted this series were original, interesting
and varied in terms of topic investigated.

Stand-alone projects were equally interesting and varied with a wide range
of topics being covered by students.

Generally, the guidance given by centres to students was seen to be clear

and constructive.

The most successful projects at level 1 were based on the selection of a

research question, commission or a design brief that generated the
evidence requirements across all four assessment objectives. In projects
that did not ask a question and gave a generic title, there was very little
opportunity to carry out the research that resulted in any alternative views
being brought forward to generate sufficient evidence to develop AO3; this
also impacted on the evidence requirements for AO2.

Very few centres provided group projects in this series at level 1. Where
group projects were submitted the best projects gave individual
responsibilities for students within a group such as ownership of specific
project objectives that sat underneath the main project title, commission or
design brief. This ensured that each student within a group could provide
their own individual evidence within their group project.
For some group work there were issues for students regarding accessing the
full range of marks across all assessment objectives. Group projects need to
have sufficient scope to allow all group members to generate the required
evidence to meet the assessment criteria for each assessment objective.
Assessors marking group work must ensure that the objective for each
students project is linked to their role and research should be focused on
their particular task, allowing the student to generate sufficient evidence
across all assessment objectives.

Student Performance

The Level 1 Foundation Project qualification requires students to select and

plan a project. Students are required to record the activities that they
undertake during the project, obtain information from a range of sources,
apply the information to the project and present this information in an
appropriate format. The students need to ensure they review their project
and their own performance.

It was pleasing to see that most projects at this level were all submitted
with a project proposal form and an activity log on the appropriate Pearson
paperwork. However, some centres were awarding marks in the higher
mark bands where evidence was brief and not fully developed.
Centres that demonstrated some internal standardisation of assessor marks
tended to show more accurate assessment strategies.

For AO1, all students were able to select a project topic. Better projects
identified a question, commission or design brief and went on to plan the
intended project outcomes. Centres are advised to ensure the timescales
highlighted in the project proposal form in section 3 reflect the 60 Guided
Learning Hours allocated to this qualification. In many of the projects
sampled this series, this aspect was very limited and this hindered students
from accessing the higher mark band.

The completion of milestones was also limited; centre assessors are advised
to ensure these sections of the project proposal form are fully completed. It
is necessary for centres to support students in thinking through section 3 on
their project proposal form and then completing this appropriately in order
to be able to demonstrate that they have attempted to follow their agreed
plan for their project completion, making justifiable changes where
necessary. Changes to a proposed plan should be fully documented on the
students activity log and reasons for the changes given.

A small number of group work projects were seen this series. Whilst this is
entirely acceptable, centres are advised to ensure that each student has a
clear role within the group to fulfill throughout the project and that each
student produces their own individual evidence that can be assessed
independently of others' contributions across all four assessment objectives.
Individual roles within a group should be clearly identified in the project
proposal form. The objectives should be set in accordance to the task the
individual is undertaking within the project. Good practice would be shown
where each member of a group identifies their own project objective to
work towards.
The majority of the projects seen this series provided a rationale for the
choice of their project although this could have been in greater depth in
some instances. Students should be encouraged to include a range of
resources such as physical, technological, human or financial required to
support the project outcomes.

Centre assessors should ensure the project is signed off confirming that the
scope of the project allows the students to generate the evidence
requirements across all of the assessment objectives.

For AO2, students were able to demonstrate some ability to obtain

information, although, in the weaker students work, this was not always
relevant to the project title.

Students need to be supported at this level in choosing appropriate

evidence to complete their intended project outcomes. In the main,
evidence of the relevance of secondary sources of data was limited.
Students found it challenging to comment on this aspect. Further support
and guidance needs to be given to students to enable them to achieve this.
This can be done by showing how the information would be relevant to the
project title or by stating the benefit of the sources to the development of
the projects.

The marking grid distinguishes between the range of sources and types of
information. This aspect was leniently assessed by some centres and some
students were awarded marks in mark band 2 whereas the evidence
supported marks in mark band 1. Centres are advised that the weaker
students are likely to rely on one type of information even if they use a
range of sources and will, therefore, attract marks in mark band one. Level
1 students showed less ability to use primary data. Centres need to
consider supporting students to do this as it can support marks awarded for
AO2.

AO3 has the highest weighting of marks for the Foundation Project. Some
students performed poorly in light of the evidence submitted for this
assessment objective. In order to award marks in mark band 2, students
are required to develop their project based on the research findings and
show some understanding of the topic, concluding with their answer to the
research question.

In many of the projects seen, assessors had awarded marks in mark band 2
where the evidence showed only limited understanding of the topic. Centres
are advised to refer to the guidance given in the specification for this
assessment objective. Where students choose artefact as their intended
project outcome most work seen would benefit from clearer and more
specific evidence that shows how the final artefact was developed and
reasons for choice of, for example, materials, colours and designs. The best
artefact projects gave solid reasons for the final design choice and evidence
that alternative designs were considered.
For AO4, students are required to generate a review of the project.
Performance in this assessment objective was limited. Overall, all students
found it challenging to meet the requirements of the assessment grid fully.

In the main, the evidence generated by students was insufficient to meet

the full requirements of the mark band 2. In many of the projects seen
students submitted a generic review on the outcome of the project and did
not reflect on the process, the skills and knowledge developed or the overall
success of the project objectives as required in the marking grid.

Centres are advised to support and encourage students to set realistic

achievable objectives for their project in the project proposal form, giving
them scope to fully develop the review, including giving clear ideas for
follow up work to access the full range of marks in the marking grid.

Assessment

Generally, centres demonstrated a good level of understanding of the

assessment requirements. However, there were examples in this series of
all the assessment objectives being awarded marks rather leniently. Centre
assessors are advised to check and refer to the marking grid in the
foundation project specification for the evidence requirements of each mark
band before awarding marks against the evidence submitted by each
student.

The majority of centres used the correct teacher assessment form to give
feedback to the students and to annotate the marks awarded for each
assessment objective. However the annotation of the evidence was very
limited. Centre assessors are advised to clearly indicate the achievement of
evidence with the relevant assessment objective and mark band.

Marks for independence for each assessment objective were not always
apparent in the assessment by the assessors. Centres are advised to clearly
indicate the mark for independent learning; for example, 3 + 1 on the
candidate record sheet.

Best assessment practice was evident where centres implemented internal

standardisation of assessment awards to ensure that marks awarded were
supported by the student evidence seen. This is particularly important
where more than one assessor was involved in the delivery and assessment
of the qualification. However, in a minority of cases internal moderation
processes failed to result in necessary changes being made to marks
awarded by centres.

Centre Performance

The required number of project samples needed for moderation was

submitted by most centres in this series.

However, there were some issues with project samples. Firstly, some
centres did not submit the highest and lowest scoring students work. More
importantly, some centres did not include a completed Edexcel Online Mark
Submission Screen print out indicating the mark submitted for each student
by the centre assessor. Centres are advised to ensure these issues are
addressed before submitting projects for moderation, to avoid the delay in
the moderation process.

The majority of centres used the correct project documentation; however

the details on the project proposal forms need to be fully completed, in
particular the timescales and milestones sections. Documentation for the
projects can be downloaded from the Project webpage.

Centres are asked to ensure that both the student and the centre assessor
sign the candidate record sheet.

Annotation of the evidence submitted by students was limited. Assessors

are advised to annotate the evidence with the assessment objective and
mark band.

Feedback to students was comprehensive; however marks for independence

need to be justified by the assessor across all of the assessment objectives.
Higher Projects Qualification
Introduction

Projects follow the same processes as traditional GCSEs and GCEs. As with
any GCSE or GCE, each unit is awarded to ensure that the standard is
established and will be maintained. It is necessary to ensure consistency of
standard in each examination window and as a result of this, grade
boundaries may be subject to change.

Suitability of work submitted

The Higher Project qualification requires that students submit evidence for
four assessment objectives.

Students need to select, plan and carry out a project that uses relevant
skills and methods to reach their project objectives. During the
development of their project they need to obtain, select and use relevant
information sources from a range of sources and, where appropriate, from
both primary and secondary sources in order to complete their project
outcome.

The students are given the best opportunity to produce relevant evidence
for the qualification if they are supported in choosing a research question to
address or a design brief or commission to complete that requires research
to take place that is relevant to the project outcome.

For AO1 students need to supply a completed project proposal form and
activity log that is focused on the requirements to plan and manage the
project. To access marks in mark band 2 the students need to describe any
problems encountered and how they were overcome. Both the project
proposal form and the activity log should be supplied on the relevant
Pearson paperwork that is available to download from the Project webpage.

The activity log should not just be a diary of the project journey but should
be a working document that students use to chart decisions and changes
made throughout their project study. Justification of any changes made
should be given in the activity log and the student should also use their log
to demonstrate that they have followed their proposed plan for their
development of the project.

For AO2 students need to demonstrate that they have gathered and used
resources that are appropriate to their project title and these resources
should be clearly identified in a bibliography that would allow the sources to
be fully retrievable. Resources should be relevant to the project objectives.
Students should be encouraged to comment on the reliability of their
sources.

For AO3 the students need to develop and realise their intended project
outcome. This can be done in the form of a written report, an investigation,
an artefact or a performance. Ideas need to be developed that show some
understanding of the topic and some evidence of alternative points of
view/design should be seen. The resultant work should be logically
sequenced and show coherence of thought.

AO4 requires students to review both the process and the outcome of their
project showing what skills and knowledge were developed and ideas for
follow up work. They should assess how well they managed and performed
and these comments should incorporate feedback from others.

The most successful project titles were those that stated a clear research
question/design brief/commission for the student to investigate and or
make and ones that also gave scope for argument and counter-argument or
discussion of choices for designs/scenery/performances. The least
successful titles at this level were those that gave a statement to
investigate, as opposed to a research question to investigate or a design
brief to fulfill. Such titles did not allow students to focus their research skills
on the development of an alternative argument or opinion.

In some centres work, the project titles given prohibited the students from
fully addressing the assessment objectives, particularly with regard to AO3.
Many students that are submitting their project work alongside Diploma
studies tended to be rather restrictive in their project title choices, staying
safely within the scope of subject matter directly relevant to their principal
learning units.

However, it is pleasing to report that in this moderation series, where

students were submitting work for the higher project as a standalone
qualification, a very interesting range of successful project titles were seen
that spanned across numerous curriculum areas and areas of students
interests.

Artefact projects were particularly interesting in their diversity of topics

chosen. It is particularly worth noting that there is, as with the January
2013 series, an increase in this series in the use of artefact and
performance project outcomes that have obviously motivated and engaged
students throughout.

Where students carried out their project as part of group work, although
some projects did demonstrate individual development, the majority did not
have sufficient individual responsibilities in the process to provide evidence
that allowed them to access the highest marks in mark band 2. Some
design project work contained evidence that gave account of the design
process but did not address the actual research project outcome as given in
the project proposal form.
Student Performance

As at all levels with the Project qualifications, regarding the written report
format, this was seen to be most successful when students chose a project
title in the form of a question and then set out to gather relevant sources of
data to address their chosen question and to answer it. By posing a
question to research students can provide their own viewpoint and then look
at a range of sources of information to prove or disprove their views.
Conclusions can be drawn and comments made on the reliability and
validity of both primary and secondary sources.

The most successful written reports are those where the student carries out
a review of their research sources and then enters into a discussion, using
their sources, to report on their project question.

The most successful artefact projects were those in which the plans and
designs were clearly relevant to the initial question and objectives on the
project proposal form. Also, where students took time to consider and
document ideas for alternative design choices and reasons why these were
not carried forward to the final project outcome. Less successful design
projects contained information about the design process but did not show
how this was relevant to the brief posed at the outset.

Artefact projects need to be supplied with information regarding relevant

research sources and how these are used to develop the final outcome.
Also, regarding the choice of a performance outcome, this outcome needs to
be supported by student evidence that demonstrates how the final piece has
been developed, possibly through evidence of rehearsals and why decisions
are made for changes to the original ideas or for refinements for the final
performances.

Assessment

Although most centres assessment practices are sound, some centres are
still seen to be awarding marks rather leniently across all four assessment
objectives.

As with the Level 1 projects, some centres are awarding marks for AO1 in
mark band 2 when the project proposal forms were very brief. Also, more
detail is often seen to be needed in sections 3 and 4 of the project proposal
form for marks in mark band 2 for AO1. Many instances were seen where
sections 3 and 4 of the project proposal form were completed generically.
Information about activities, timescales and resources required for the
project should be relevant to the students choice of project and not just
lists of requirements such as access to the internet.

The project proposal form is an important part of the assessment evidence

and should not be completed hastily. It is recommended, where possible,
that it is typed on computer, allowing the proposal form to evolve with the
project. Section 3, where students need to give thoughtful ideas for the
main activities that they need to carry out to complete their project
outcome and relevant timescales, is of particular importance. Where this is
completed in a non-specific and hurried manner, it is not possible for the
student to show how they have followed their agreed plan for their activities
to complete their project therefore restricting access to marks in mark band
2 for AO1. This also restricts in depth comments being made for parts of
AO4.

In some proposal forms seen, the objectives were not always clear and
measurable. Some students seemed unclear as to the meaning of an
objective and would benefit from some further guidance here before
completing their proposal form.

Regarding AO2, several projects were submitted without clear bibliographies

making it difficult to check and to retrieve the sources used. Where a
bibliography was included it did not always contain all of the references
used within the project. Some of the references included Wikipedia or
search engines rather than authentic webpages, journals or books. Some of
the candidates used referencing within the project and downloaded web
pages that they had used instead.

Most of the students used primary and secondary research, and where
primary was used it was mainly demonstrated by the use of a
questionnaire. Some candidates had written had a chat with .. or a
relative/friend told me rather than more solid evidence of face to face
interviews such as written or recorded transcripts.

Some questionnaires seen would benefit from containing questions that

were more focussed on the research question or design brief and, therefore,
more likely to provide primary data that could be used to develop the
project.

Some good practice included candidates that had included a reference table.
The table format gave one column that listed the type of resources eg
webpage, a second column that gave the full reference, a third column
discussed what information had been retrieved and used within the project
and a fourth column that discussed the reliability and relevance of the
information.

Regarding AO3, all students work seen did attempt to develop and realise
their projects. Some centres submitted extremely well thought out projects
that were interesting and informative. This is to be commended.

However, in some work sampled, the evidence given for AO3 was not
always relevant to the project title or project objectives given in the project
proposal form therefore making it difficult to agree marks awarded in mark
band 2. Some student evidence sampled lacked coherence and was
restricted by numerous spelling and grammatical errors. Where students are
working towards a design brief or commission, it is important that the
evidence submitted shows how the final artefact was developed and reasons
for choice of, for example, materials, colours and designs is included to
demonstrate the development of the outcome. The best artefact projects
gave solid reasons for the final design choice and evidence that alternative
designs were considered.
Equally, where performance outcomes are presented, the evidence should
include why the performance evolved as it did giving reasons for changes
made in rehearsals, for example, and how these changes benefited the final
piece.

In most students work, the evidence for AO4 was seen to sit in across both
mark bands. Centres need to ensure that all students are supported in
providing a review of their project work that addresses all the requirements
for AO4 and does not just focus on the actual project outcome. This
evidence should review the project process including a review of the
students own learning and performance, stating which objectives were or
were not met and why, giving a description of skills and knowledge
developed and learnt during the project and also giving ideas for follow up
work.

Full reviews were seldom seen. Reviews can be supported by peer review
where appropriate. This is particularly relevant where group work has been
undertaken.

Centre Performance

The Level 2 Project is a qualification that attracts 60 GLH and students need
to be given a sufficient amount of time (at least 20GLH) to develop their
skills and knowledge relevant to their area of study. It is recommended that
centres use at least this number of guided learning hours to actually teach
the relevant research skills that the students will need to develop their
project successfully. Some centres are still not directing the students to
provide clear bibliographies of all sources used.

Only the minority of centres were seen to be internally standardising marks

awarded by centre assessors.

There are still issues surrounding group work. Where students research the
same project title, centres must ensure that all students have their own
individual roles and responsibilities so that they can provide individual
evidence for their project process and outcome. These roles and
responsibilities can be clearly demonstrated in the individuals project
proposal form as discrete project objectives that sit underneath the overall
group project title.

Evidence for AO4 is still seen to be weak in most cases. Although many
level 2 centres do support their students in carrying out an oral presentation
(e.g. to their peer group to tell them about their project), only a minority of
centres support their students in using peer evaluation for some evidence
towards AO4 this is a lost opportunity.

Note that, although an oral presentation is not a mandatory requirement for

AO4 at level 2, it does provide information that can very usefully be used by
the students in judging their own performance and how well they have
managed. Where this is not conducted students would still benefit from a
discussion with the tutor/assessor about how well they have conducted their
project and, again, this information could be used for evidence towards
AO4.

Best assessment practice was evident where centres implemented internal

verification of assessment to ensure that marks awarded to the students
were supported by the evidence provided by the students. This was
particularly important where more than one assessor was involved in the
delivery and assessment of the qualification or where more than one type of
outcome was being submitted across a cohort of students. However, in a
minority of cases, internal verification processes failed to result in necessary
changes being made to marks awarded by centres although the moderation
process demonstrated that these changes were necessary.

At level 2 assessors can award an extra mark for each assessment objective
if the student has worked fairly independently. Centres are advised to
justify the award of this mark; some centres just annotated +1 in the marks
column.
Grade Boundaries

Grade boundaries for this, and all other papers, can be found on the website on
this link:
http://www.edexcel.com/iwant to/Pages/grade-boundaries.aspx
Pearson Education Limited. Registered company number 872828
with its registered office at Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, Essex CM20 2JE