 |
Report May 1999
The modules moderated were:
| Module |
Number |
Moderator |
|
| BA300 |
1 |
Pat Mole (Waiariki Polytechnic) |
| BC100 |
13 |
Trona Rawlence (Nelson Polytechnic) |
| DA200 |
12 |
Gay Costain (Auckland Institute of Technology) |
| EL100 |
2 |
Jeff Simpson (Taranaki Polytechnic) |
| EP100 |
1 |
Jeff Simpson (Taranaki Polytechnic) |
| GW300 |
1 |
Jeff Simpson (Taranaki Polytechnic) |
| HS200 |
8 |
Jeff Simpson (Taranaki Polytechnic) |
| MB100 |
1 |
Trevor Nesbit (Aoraki Polytechnic) |
| MP200 |
2 |
Pat Mole (Waiariki Polytechnic) |
| NE200 |
2 |
Garry Roberton (The Waikato Polytechnic) |
| NM21n |
10 |
Garry Roberton (The Waikato Polytechnic) |
| OO100 |
3 |
Pat Mole (Waiariki Polytechnic) |
| OS210 |
2 |
Jeff Simpson (Taranaki Polytechnic) |
| PP100 |
18 |
Trevor Nesbit (Aoraki Polytechnic) |
| PR230 |
2 |
Jeff Simpson (Taranaki Polytechnic) |
| PR30n |
2 |
Jeff Simpson (Taranaki Polytechnic) |
| PR350 |
3 |
Jeff Simpson (Taranaki Polytechnic) |
| SI200 |
5 |
Gay Costain (Auckland Institute of Technology) |
| SP120 |
1 |
Pat Mole (Waiariki Polytechnic) |
| TR300 |
8 |
Leonie Bridgeman (Taranaki Polytechnic) |
| TS200 |
1 |
Jeff Simpson (Taranaki Polytechnic) |
|
98 |
|
The total number of modules presented for moderation at 98 is the highest number moderated (71 in September 98, 73 in May 98, 92 in September 97, 81 in May 97, 73 in September 96, 62 in May 96, 85 in September 95).
Nineteen polytechnics submitted material for moderation. Up on the sixteen in the previous round. The polytechnics which submitted material were:
| AIT |
Aoraki |
Bay of Plenty |
CIT |
| Christchurch |
EIT |
Hutt Valley |
MIT |
| Nelson |
Tai Poutini |
Tairawhiti |
Taranaki |
| The Open |
The Waikato |
Wairarapa |
Waiariki |
| Wanganui |
Wellington |
Whitireia |
|
Moderators stated the following suggested changes to the prescription:
BA300 It is not possible to mark a presentation ONLY on content - particularly when prescription requires presentation. A portion of marks should be allocated to presentation not just content.
BC100 None obvious except perhaps a comment that technical writing means more than instructions to operate equipment.
DA200 If the prescription was more specific as to the level of difficulty required, then the polytechs could assess their students at a more consistent standard. The prescription requests that a 'simple' organisation be modelled. Judgement as to what is simple is subjective. Some indications of number of entities, relationships, categories of relationships would be helpful. Also, the prescription could be more specific as to whether the case study used for 1.1 is the same as required for 1.2
EL100 1. The numbering of topic 2 are wrong eg 2.2 should be 2.1.1 and 2.1.1 should be 2.2 etc
1. In NOTES the 50% is too high and does not fir in with the earlier "Suggested Assessment Percentage" of 10% as it only relates to Topics 3.2, 3.4, 3.5. Suggest replace "50%" with "10% - 30%".
EP100 nil
GW300 The topic headings in the Schedule and in the Content must be made the same.
HS200 nil
MB100 nil
MP200 appears appropriate
NE200 Prescription needs to be revised and rewritten in learning outcome format.
NM21n Change the name to 'Applied Network Administration' or place more emphasis on management if the course title is retained.
OO100 Delete note 1.
OS210 nil
PP100 Clarifying "data storage" - is it -permanent storage eg disk files or - temporary storage eg arrays.
The interpretation of this is the major difference between polytechnics.
PR230 The modules did not meet the required quantity of assessment as stated in the prescription, as the 80% of A & P (reg 8.9). The practical requirement should be lessened by including "2 of" in 2.2, "3 of" in 3, "4 of" in 5.1, and "6 of" in 6.
PR30n nil
PR350 nil except that the Resources in Note To Tutor needs updating.
SI200 Volume and timing calculations for data conversion are important in the real world and should be addressed in the prescription. One polytech already incorporated the calculations.
SP120 nil
TR300 nil
TS200 nil
The above will be taken into consideration by the NACCQ NDBC Working Group.
The level of material is good but improvements in a number of areas are still necessary. The main area still requiring attention is that of Marking Schedules. These are sometimes non existent and in other cases lacking detail. They should be of a standard so that if a tutor different from the one who set the assignment marked the assessment using the assessment schedule, then very similar marks would be awarded when compared with that given by the tutor who wrote the assessment.
The updated 1999 Blue Book has brought into the NDBC a number of new modules, particularly in the area of electronics. Such modules seem to be taught by tutors new to the NDBC arena and they need to be acquainted with our standards regarding Course Outlines, Assessment Schedules and Marking Schedules.
As part of this moderation round the moderators were asked to review the NDBC moderation process. Two suggested requiring samples of student work. Another that the moderation process "has no teeth". Others that the computer package/language and version number used in an assessment be stated. This review is being analysed and is ongoing.
Due at NACCQ office by 14th August 1999 are:
| DC100 | IN100 | PP11n | SO100 | SP190 | WX100 | |
AE200 | BA210 | FG200 | MA200 | OS20n | OS25n | |
PR20n | PY200 | TR200 | | | | |
NE300 | PR330 | SA300 | SR300 | | |
Jeff Simpson
National ICBC/NDBC Moderator
15th June 1999
|
|
|
|
