This guidance in full can be found in the Best Practice Guidebook under 'Organising Arts Award moderations'. The following is a summary of the information set out in the Best Practice Guidebook, plus answers to frequently asked questions.
Moderation is the process of validating the adviser’s assessment of the young people’s work. At moderation, a trained Arts Award moderator will look in detail at a sample of the young people’s portfolios or arts logs to ensure the adviser assessment is accurate and in line with Arts Award evidence requirements and assessment criteria, and that evidence has been correctly signposted.
Where the moderator does not agree with the mark that an adviser has given for a part of the award, they will amend this accordingly. The amended mark will be determined by how well the evidence signposted by the adviser meets the criteria for that part of the award.
As the moderator is only looking at a sample of the portfolios/arts logs, if there is a consistent misunderstanding of the evidence required for a part of the award, they will amend the mark for that part across every portfolio/arts log the adviser has assessed at that level.
Remember: The moderator is not checking that the sample portfolios/arts logs meet the criteria to pass; they are checking that the adviser who has assessed the work has marked accurately and in line with the evidence and assessment criteria detailed in the adviser toolkit. Therefore, it should not matter if the portfolios/arts logs sampled are strong, weak, or marked as 'Below Pass'. As long as the adviser has marked accurately, and the moderator agrees with this, the rest of the cohort assessed by that adviser at that level will not have their marks amended.
Why did the moderator amend the overall result for some of the sampled portfolios/arts logs only?
In cases where only some of the sampled young people from an adviser cohort have had their overall mark amended, but the marks for the non-sampled young people have not been altered, this will be because the moderator has disagreed with the marking for one or more parts of the award, but only across a minority of the sample. This amendment, therefore, is only reflected in those portfolios/arts logs the moderator has disagreed with the marking for. No amendments are made to the results of the non-sampled young people.
Why did the moderator change the overall results for some/all of the sampled portfolios/arts logs and all of the non-sampled portfolios/arts logs?
In cases where all of the young people from an adviser cohort have had their overall mark amended (except perhaps some of the sampled young people), this will be because the moderator, across the majority, or all, of the sample has:
In the first two cases, this amendment has therefore been reflected in the marking for the non-sampled young people. In the last case, the non-sampled young people will have all parts of the award that the moderator has flagged as inconsistently marked, amended to 'Attempted'. For those in the sample, the moderator will re-mark these individually and amend the part marks accordingly.
To achieve an overall 'Pass' result, portfolios/arts logs can only have one part marked as 'Attempted' (or, in the case of Silver and Gold Arts Award, one part marked as 'Attempted' per Unit), and the remainder of the parts must be marked as 'Pass'. If any part is marked as 'Not Attempted', then this would result in an overall 'Below Pass'.
Why did the moderator change the overall result for some/all of the sampled portfolios/arts logs and only some of the non-sampled portfolios/arts logs?
In cases where only some of the non-sampled young people from an adviser cohort have had their overall mark amended, this will be because the moderator has disagreed with the marking for one part of the award across the majority, or all, of the sample. This amendment has therefore been reflected in the marks for the non-sampled young people.
For those who had all parts of the award marked as ‘Pass’ by the adviser, amending one to ‘Attempted’ would not impact the overall mark of the portfolio/arts log. For those who already had one part of the award marked as ‘Attempted’ however, amending another to ‘Attempted’ would result in an overall ‘Below Pass’.
In cases where there is an irregularity in the moderation process the moderator will refer the moderation back to Trinity. Irregularities may include circumstances such as the adviser assessment report forms not being fully completed or when the moderation cannot be completed within the agreed timings, due to a late start or issues leading to it overrunning.
For face-to-face moderation, the adviser/centre will be made aware that the moderation will be referred by the moderator, at the moderation, as and when this decision is made. For postal and online moderation, the centre will be notified of the referral by Trinity at the point of results issue.
Where a moderation, or cohort, is referred and the moderation is unable to go ahead, the young people affected will be marked as ‘absent’ and the moderator will submit a referral form to Trinity. The centre may still be liable for the full cost of moderation. Trinity will then contact the centre/adviser to offer support, whether this be over the phone, via Skype or in person. Following this, the centre may look towards resubmission for the young people affected.
It is possible to address the concerns raised by the moderator and book another moderation date for resubmission. Where an adviser has marked a portfolio as a below pass, and the moderator validates this mark, or where a portfolio is withdrawn on the day of moderation and marked ‘absent’, the portfolio may also be resubmitted at a later date.
Resubmission per-head fees are the same as the moderation fees and can be booked via the centre portal as a new moderation. Moderators will not be made aware that the moderation includes resubmitted portfolios and all resubmissions will be moderated under normal moderation conditions.