HN Accounting

2. HN Accounting

3. Programme for the Day • Subject Update • Senior Verifier – Feedback • HN Review – Liz MacFadyen • Workshop 1 • Lunch • Workshop 2 • Plenary

4. Subject Update • HN Review - implementation session 2010/2011 • Launch of PDAs in June 2008:PDA in Book-keeping at SCQF level 7PDA in Financial Accounting at SCQF level 7PDA in Management Accounting at SCQF level 7(information leaflets available for download from HN Accounting webpage)

5. Subject Update – Resources • Graded Unit 1 – additional exemplar will be available by Christmas 2008 • COLEG packs – details in COLEG’s Project News downloadable from www.coleg.org.uk

6. Subject Update – Understanding Standards Exemplification of GU marking: • Graded Unit 2 • B grade project • Graded Unit 32 questions at A, B and C • Access the website – www.understandingstandards.org.uk At the foot of the scrolling menu on the right-hand side, click ‘HN Beta’. On receiving the password prompt, type in the following:Username: hnauthorPassword: usw72(HN section of Understanding Standards website secure to restrict access to staff only)

7. Verification Feedback Visiting Verification of Units • Confirmed that centres are delivering and assessing to the required standard • Most centres had taken account of update bulletin information issued by SQA

8. Visiting Verification Feedback Good Practice • Centres preparing booklets detailing the assessment details, assessment conditions, etc for candidates • Master folders well documented to ensure consistent delivery of units Further Development • Ensure assessment instruments and materials are updated in line with current legislation • IV process should be ongoing process - not end-loaded • Centres should encourage candidates to complete assessments in ink • Centres should mark in ink and identify where marks are awarded

9. Graded Unit 1 • Centres had dealt well with the change to assessment and are commended for quality of marking • Central verification successful • Assessment resulted in wider spread of grades which better reflects the competence of candidates • A few centres not applying consequential marking to candidates’ scripts on a consistent basis • Some instances, where there was disagreement between the assessor and internal verifier on marking, the decision on final grade was not reached and left to EV to decide – centres must make decision prior to submission for central verification

10. Graded Unit 2 • Reviewed on a visiting verification basis • Timing of visits caused a few problems (to ensure completion of planning and developing stages) • Face-to-face feedback valued by centres • Centres assessing Unit to required standard • Centres which set firm deadlines for submissions ensured timely completion of each stage of project

11. Graded Unit 3 • Successful central verification • Centres had complied with change in unit specification – information sheet detailing relevant taxation data

12. Graded Units Good Practice • Some centres had amended exemplars to contextualise them for the local market without altering assessment in any fundamental way • Candidates encouraged to maintain a diary/record of research for Graded Unit 2 – this enables candidates and assessors to identify successes and failures in research • VLEs used to support candidates

13. Graded Units Development Points relating to GU2 • Set deadlines for submission of each stage of project • Use of submission statements to ensure authenticity of candidate work • Submissions should be in report format