Annexure J 2
POST ASSESSMENT MODERATION TOOL
NAME OF SCHOOL FLORIDA PARK HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT
JW-D12
SUBJECT
CREATIVE ARTS
GRADE 9
TASK MODERATED SBA
NAME OF Ms Maseko
MODERATOR
TECHNICAL ASPECTS
Quality Indicators Comment in FULL sentence
1. The question paper is complete with Yes. Sba complete with the marking guideline
the marking guideline and
assessment grid analysis.
2. The cover page has all the relevant Yes. There is details such as subject, grade and rubric
details such as subject, grade, assessment criteria
duration, date, marks allocation, and
number of pages.
3. Instructions to candidates are clearly Yes. In accordance to requirements. No adjustments
specified and unambiguous required.
4. Mark allocation is clearly indicated Correct- in accordance to the requirement
per question.
5. The mark allocation on the question yes
paper is the same as on the marking
guideline.
6. The quality of illustration, pictures, Yes. Pictures are clear and readable
graphs, diagrams.
7. The marking guideline is efficient in Yes. It provide alternatives which allows consitancy of
terms of sufficient alternatives and marking. Easily interpretated and allows alternatives.
allows consistent marking.
STANDARD OF THE TEST
1. The task assesses all specific Yes. All specific core content and skills according to
core content and skills that ATP.
should be covered in this term as
per the ATP.
2. The distribution of different YES- 25% / 25%
cognitive levels as per policy.
Indicate the distribution.
3. Different types of questions used Not applicable
(Multiple choice, matching type,
missing words, open-ended, etc.)
4. The correct terminology of the yes
subject was used to design the
test
5. The language used is yes
appropriate for the level of
learners.
MARKING
1. Quality of marking by the teacher.
(Consistency, accountability of ticks, According and relevance of the marking guideline
relevance of marking tool)
2. Marking of all sections of the task. Yes. All tasks are signed and dated during marking
Signature and dating of the tasks
during marking
3. Compliance to marking standards as Teacher complied with all marking standards.
outlined in the marking guideline
(e.g., writing of subtotals)
4. Evidence of extended opportunities No extended opportunity for the tasks. All learners
to learners who did not submit tasks worked well.
due to valid reason.
5. Accuracy of calculation of marks on All marks were added up correctly
each learner’s task.
6. Incidence of lenient marking, global All marking is fair and concise
marking or unmarked questions but
marks awarded to learners (be
specific)
7. Evidence of feedback (to teachers, teacher has supplied each learner with quality
learners, DH) and its possible impact feedback and its evident.
on the improvement of SBA.
8. Performance analysis of each task is Teacher has analyzed the results in accordance
done by the teacher
9. Any other comment on Marking.
RECORDING
1. The use of SA SAMS working All marks are recorded on SASAMS mark sheet
marksheets and the patch
2. Accuracy of transference of marks Marks were entered correctly
from learner evidence of work to the
SA SAMS marksheet.
3. Evidence of learners who missed There is evidence in the teacher’s file
SBA task is provided in the teacher
file.
LEARNER PERFORMANCE
1. The quality and standard of learner Learners responded appropriately.
responses to each question type.
2. The influence of standard of the The standard was on par with the requirements.
test on the performance of the
learners.
3. Correlation between mark Learners responses and teachers marks allocation
allocation by the teacher and are on par.
learner responses
4. Do you think the style of marking No. the style of marking is in accordance with
and recording may have had impact requirements.
on the performance of learners?
Elaborate
5. The learner performance in the task Yes. The results of the tasks show an external
is comparable to performance in balance.
other formal tasks (consult the
SASAMS working marksheets)
Questions which were not attempted/poorly answered by learners and possible
causes. (FOR COMMON TASKS only)
Poorly Nature of the Possible reasons Recommendations
answered challenge/Type of
questions question
SCHOOL BASED MODERATION
1. Evidence of pre- and post-
assessment moderation of the test?
Elaborate
2. Quality of moderation at each level.
Use of different colour pens.
3. Feedback provided to the teacher by
the Departmental Head/Teacher
Moderator/Subject Advisor?
4. Implementation of recommendations
suggested by the moderator at each
level.
5. Evidence of HISTORY of the task
provided.
6. Moderator signed off the SA SAMS
working marksheet
COMPUTER GENERATED MARKSHEETS (For last phase of moderation)
1. Transfer of marks from the SA SAMS
working mark sheet to the copy of
computerised marksheet
2. Correct code awarded for blanks and
“0” mark on the marksheet
3. Copy of computerised marksheet
signed off by DH and Principal.
OVERALL IMPRESSION BY THE MODERATOR
Areas of Good Practice Challenges Recommendations
Name of learners whose files were moderated (For School, circuit, district and
provincial moderation)
Name and surname of Educator Mark Moderated Mark
learner
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
MODERATORS NAME SIGNATURES DATE
School Moderator
Departmental Head
Cluster Moderator
District Moderator
Provincial Moderator
